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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important behavioral trait: 'Requires an API key with feedback permission enabled' and details potential error handling ('If you get a permission error, ask the user...'). It also states the feedback goes directly to Voxos. It does not describe the result of a successful submission, but for a simple submission tool, this is adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses clear formatting (bolded important note, bulleted categories). Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 low complexity and rich input schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, permission requirements, and category usage. It lacks an explanation of the response or post-submission behavior, but this is not critical for a feedback submission tool. No output schema exists, so a brief note on what happens next could be beneficial, but its absence does not significantly hinder accurate invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each category in more depth than the schema (e.g., 'bug: Report something that isn't working correctly'), but it does not significantly enhance the semantics of 'content' or 'tool' beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'Submit feedback to help improve Clink' with specific actions: 'report bugs, request features, or suggest improvements directly to Voxos.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on proposals, milestones, clinks, etc., none of which involve 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool via its category definitions (bug, feature, improvement, other) and includes a critical prerequisite (API key with feedback permission). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use it, but given the distinct nature of feedback vs. sibling tools, this is a minor omission.

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