fleet_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the main side effect ('This trains the router') and defines each verdict, but it does not mention whether repeated feedback overrides prior feedback, authorization requirements, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences contain the action, timing, verdict definitions, and system impact with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded and does not repeat schema 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 simple three-parameter feedback tool, the description covers the action, when to call it, what the verdicts mean, and why it matters ('trains the router'). Return behavior and edge cases like duplicate feedback are not covered, but they are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 no parameter descriptions, so the description's explanations add real value: 'good = used as is, fixed = needed corrections, rejected = unusable' fully defines the verdict enum, and 'delegated result' implies what task_id refers to. The note parameter is not explicitly described, but its role is inferable.

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 names a specific action—telling the fleet how good a delegated result was—and defines the three feedback verdicts. This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from siblings like fleet_status, fleet_delegate, and fleet_queue.

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 phrase 'after you reviewed it' supplies clear timing, and 'trains the router' clarifies this is post-delegation feedback rather than a status or setup tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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