Send feedback to Thalus

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: a human reviews the text before it is sent, and the reply is routed to the organization owner or a caller-supplied address. That said, the destructiveHint=true annotation is never explained or reconciled with what is effectively a submit-to-human operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing in the trailing clause ('where the person is asked for one'), but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers routing, the review step, and the account requirement, so the calling context is mostly complete. It falls short on the parameter side: with 0% schema coverage, the category options and message constraints should have been spelled out.

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 0% and there are two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions 'message' or 'category', the 4000-character limit, or the bug/idea/praise/other enum. An agent gets no help from the prose on what to pass.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send product feedback to Thalus'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling tool (none of which deal with feedback). It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but no sibling is confusable, so the omission is harmless.

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 line 'Works without an AIR account, where the person is asked for one' gives real context on when this call is viable, which is useful for an agent operating in an unauthenticated flow. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over other routes or how to choose between categories, so usage is only implied.

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