zelinqa_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious semantic: recording a result is decoupled from marking the objective achieved. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the conversation must already exist, idempotency, or what happens if feedback is recorded twice.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the important caveat placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core recording action is clear. But for a mutation-style tool with no annotations and a largely undocumented parameter set, the description omits prerequisites, repeat-call behavior, and the purpose of 'label', leaving real gaps.

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 only 33%: only 'conversation' is documented in the schema, and 'label' has no description anywhere. The description restates the 'result' enum rather than adding format or constraint meaning, and gives no help on the optional 'label' parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Record') and resource ('the actual business result') and enumerates the accepted values (success, partial, failure), which lets an agent match it to the result enum immediately. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of 5.

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 clause 'This does not itself mark the conversation objective achieved' hints at a distinction from the tool that does close out an objective, but no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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