submit_product_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Submit a product feedback activity draft' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify whether this creates a new record, updates an existing one, requires authentication, has side effects, or what happens upon submission. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and resource. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for a submission tool. With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks sufficient context for reliable use.

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 high at 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 the action ('submit') and resource ('product feedback activity draft'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like submit_content_creation or submit_story, which likely handle different types of activities. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for product-related feedback vs. other activities), or exclusions. With sibling tools like submit_mentoring and submit_workshop available, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection.

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