gateway.submit_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase behavior: by default returns a preview, and submission only occurs when confirm_submission is true. This is clear and transparent, though no further details like rate limits or auth needs are given.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then clarifies the key behavior (default vs. submission). This is an efficient and well-structured description.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral distinction (preview vs. submit) but omits details such as the preview payload format, error handling, or expected output. This leaves the agent with some gaps about how to interpret the result.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value only for confirm_submission (explaining its role in submission) but does not elaborate on other parameters like title, description, or issue_type. Thus, it provides marginal additional meaning.

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 the tool prepares and optionally submits a PMCP feedback issue to GitHub. It specifies the default behavior (preview) and the action to submit (confirm_submission=true). The tool is distinct from siblings, which are all about gateway operations, not feedback submission.

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 for feedback preparation or submission but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is minimal.

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