memory_feedback

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds that the tool 'adjusts trust scoring,' which is more specific. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether feedback triggers recalculation, is idempotent, or has rate limits). Given the annotation baseline, the description adds moderate value but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of only eight words. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose but does not explain what the feedback signals mean, how trust scoring is adjusted, or when to provide each signal. While the output schema may document the response, the description lacks enough context for an agent to use the tool reliably without external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well described in the input schema (e.g., deprecation notes for camelCase aliases, enum values for signal). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit feedback to adjust trust scoring for stored memories.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_memory, list_memories, and recall, which deal with creating, listing, or retrieving memories rather than providing feedback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts where feedback is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify whether feedback should be given after using a memory or after ignoring it, nor does it contrast with tools like save_memory or recall.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.