submit_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without revealing whether it overwrites existing feedback, whether permissions are required, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details. It earns its place by stating the core action and target efficiently.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the operation's return value, prerequisites, or side effects. It omits the role of the optional interviewStepId and any behavioral implications, making it incomplete for confident 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 schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mapping 'feedback/scorecard' to rating and notes, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Submit') and the resource ('interview feedback/scorecard') with a target ('for an application'), distinguishing this write operation from sibling read tool get_application_feedback and add_candidate_note.

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 implies the tool is for submitting interview feedback in an application context, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that this tool should be used instead of add_candidate_note or get_application_feedback for specific scenarios.

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