axint.feedback.create

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

Discloses that it writes or reads redacted packets and never includes source by default. Annotations are all false, so description carries burden. It adds some behavioral context but doesn't clarify the dual read/write mode based on the 'latest' parameter.

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 somewhat verbose with redundant phrases like 'Users... Use: use when... Effects:'. It could be more concise and front-loaded with key 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 complexity (16 parameters, read/write duality), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how the 'latest' parameter triggers reading vs writing, nor what happens when both modes are invoked. Output schema exists, but behavioral aspects are undercovered.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds general context about packet contents (issue class, redacted evidence) which hints at parameter purposes, but does not explicitly map parameters or provide additional syntax details.

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 creates or reads a privacy-safe learning packet, lists what packets include, and differentiates from sending source code. It distinguishes from sibling tools like axint.fix-packet by focusing on feedback rather than fixes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'use when Axint output was weak and you need a privacy-safe issue packet' and when not: 'not for sending source'. However, it does not mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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