submit_sop_feedback

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

Despite having no annotations, the description precisely discloses behavioral details: feedback is appended as a JSON line to a .feedback.jsonl file in the SOP's folder, including version, timestamp, and text. This goes beyond a generic statement and gives clear expectations for the side effect.

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 two sentences that front-load the purpose and then add an efficient behavioral detail. No wasted words; every clause adds necessary context.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, mechanics, and side effects. It could optionally mention validation or error conditions, but these are not required for a basic feedback submission tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with clear descriptions (sop_name and feedback). The description does not add significant additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it remains at the schema-corrected baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' with a resource 'improvement feedback for a specific SOP', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like list_resources, run_sop, and publish_sop. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage when one has improvement feedback for an SOP but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It provides context that feedback is for future review, but lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools.

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