submit_agent_feedback

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

Annotations already declare this is a write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world tool. The description adds meaningful behavior: it writes a private feedback event, does not alter product content, and explicitly forbids API keys, prompts, captions, media URLs, personal data, and fabricated outcomes.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by privacy constraints. The phrase 'bounded private operational telemetry' is slightly jargon-heavy, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a seven-parameter write tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description leaves parameter semantics entirely undocumented. Privacy behavior is well covered, but an agent lacks guidance on required fields and how to populate the context object.

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 0% across seven parameters, including a nested context object. The description never explains source, tool, outcome, client, comment, context, or error_code, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema names and enums.

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?

States a specific verb (submit), resource (operational telemetry / private feedback event), and timing (after a concrete posterly workflow outcome). It clearly distinguishes itself from product-content changes, though it does not explicitly name the sibling submit_product_feedback as the alternative.

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?

Provides a condition for use: after a concrete workflow outcome. It also states privacy exclusions, but does not explain when to choose this over submit_product_feedback or ask_support, nor does it state any when-not to use.

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