personal_add_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that feedback is informal and inferred from user reaction rather than formal scoring, and it names the outcome categories. However, it does not state whether this creates or updates a record, how identifiers should be supplied, or any side effects.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and ends with a clarifying exclusion. Every part earns its place; no redundant phrasing.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks details on feedback_id and capture_id provenance and on how the record is stored or returned.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for outcome and memory_ids ('用了哪些记忆'), but it leaves the required feedback_id unexplained and does not clarify note or capture_id. An agent cannot reliably know what values to provide.

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 records the effect of an answer that relied on personal memory, listing what is recorded (used memories and user reaction) and the outcome categories. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like personal_add_record or personal_add_followup.

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 context is clear: use after a memory-dependent answer when the user's reaction indicates helpful, missed, or corrected. It also explicitly excludes formal rating/scoring. It doesn't name alternative siblings, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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