submit_conversation_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a stub locally and a hosted utility, implying no side effects locally. It mentions 'redacted' for privacy, but lacks details on success/failure behavior, authorization, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It packs purpose, usage condition, and environment constraint into minimal text. Every part earns its place, making it very concise.

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 lack of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage condition. However, it does not specify what happens when called locally (likely error) or describe return values/error states. Adequate for a stub tool but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described briefly. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; 'request' and 'context' remain generic. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the work, but description adds no value.

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 submits a redacted structured product-quality report, specifically after the user explicitly asks for feedback. The verb 'submit' and resource 'conversation_feedback' are precise, and the utility tag distinguishes it from the many action-oriented sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use: when the user asks agentcentral for feedback. It also notes that the tool is only functional on a hosted endpoint, not on the local stdio server, providing clear environmental context. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions beyond the local restriction.

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