pasm_feel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect ('drives emotional state evolution'), but does not clarify persistence, reversibility, or whether the report is recorded beyond the state change, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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?

One concise sentence with the core action, target state, and valence range. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple state-update tool with three flat parameters and no output schema, the description plus input schema gives enough to invoke correctly. It could mention what the caller gets back, but this is not essential for a mutation.

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 67%; event and valence are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the valence range (-1 to +1) but adds little new parameter-level meaning, and agent_id remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('报告' / report) and a specific resource ('an event with emotional valence'), and explicitly states the intended effect (driving emotional-state evolution). This distinguishes it from siblings like pasm_save or pasm_feedback, which do not target valence-driven state evolution.

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 clear context: use when reporting an emotionally valenced event to update PASM's emotional state. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, so it misses the top bar.

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