submit_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the rationale for including the email (support follow-up, agents have no inbox) but does not mention other traits such as whether the action is destructive, rate limits, or expected response. For a simple submission tool, the coverage is adequate.

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 three sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, indicating when to use it, and providing critical parameter guidance. No extraneous words are present.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers its purpose, usage context, and key parameter. It does not specify the outcome (e.g., confirmation or ticket ID) or error handling, but this is minimal given no output schema is expected.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds significant value for the 'email' parameter by explaining why it is needed and providing guidance to use the agent_email from the ACP session. This context goes beyond the schema's format 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 clearly states the tool submits feedback, feature requests, or bug reports to the support team. It identifies the specific verb 'submit' and resource 'feedback' to the BulkRender support team, distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools that handle document generation, batch processing, or session management.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a feature isn't supported, a problem is encountered, or a user has a suggestion.' It provides clear context, though it does not list alternative tools for similar tasks, which are not needed as no sibling shares this purpose.

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