uno_rate_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral consequence: submitted scores influence search recommendation ranking. It does not state whether a new rating overwrites a prior one, whether authentication is required, or whether rating is idempotent. The ranking-impact disclosure is the significant piece and it is present.

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 content is front-loaded: the action and its consequence come first, then the tool/skill branches are bulleted, then the scoring guidance. It is compact and every line carries actionable information, with only minor redundancy between the bullet list and the scoring sentence.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation-ish tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, target selection, and score semantics adequately. It does not say what a successful rating returns or whether repeated ratings replace earlier ones, which are the remaining 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining the intent-to-parameter mapping: pass tool_name for tools (with a fully qualified server.tool example) and skill_id for skills. The legacy server_name parameter is left to the schema only, which is the sole 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: giving a rating/feedback after using a tool or skill, and immediately states the consequence (ratings affect search recommendation ranking). It also disambiguates the two rating targets (tool vs skill) via named parameters, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like uno_search_tools or uno_call_tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: rate after a successful call, use the 4-5 range when satisfied and 1-2 when not, and rate proactively when a rating_hint is received. It also routes the agent between tool_name and skill_id depending on what is being rated, which functions as the when-to-use branch.

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