submit_product_feedback

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the feedback goes to the public board users see in the dashboard, requires human approval before confirm=true, and forbids secrets, captions, media URLs, and third-party personal data. These are important safety and visibility details not expressed by the annotations alone.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage gating, confirmation requirements, alternatives, and privacy constraints. Every sentence carries operational value and there is no redundant wording.

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?

The definition is largely complete for a public feedback submission: it covers purpose, approval flow, visibility, privacy restrictions, and the sibling alternative. The remaining gaps are the undocumented optional parameters and the absence of any return-value description, though no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and seven parameters, the description adds useful meaning for title and category approval, confirm=true, and content restrictions. However, it leaves optional client, source, context.request_id, and context.related_tool undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: file a product bug, idea, or feedback on the public posterly feedback board. It explicitly distinguishes this from submit_agent_feedback, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 when-to-use guidance: only when the human explicitly asks to report a bug, suggest a feature, or send feedback. It also states when not to use it and names the alternative for tool failures and retries.

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