submit_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that feedback goes to the engineering team and expects clear input, but lacks details on safety, permissions, or system behavior beyond the return value. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, usage context, parameter list, and return info. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though a slightly shorter presentation would improve score.

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 feedback tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and usage context adequately. Missing are potential error handling or authentication notes, but overall it is complete enough.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: report_type with acceptable values ('bug', 'feedback', 'feature_request'), title with an example, and description with guidance. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 that the tool is for reporting bugs, suggesting features, or giving feedback. It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('feedback'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only feedback submission tool.

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 says 'Use this when you encounter platform issues or have ideas for improvement,' providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or offer alternatives, which would be helpful but is not critical given sibling tool distinctiveness.

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