Send feedback to Agent Chef

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety/external-send profile is already covered. The description adds the domain distinction (feedback about Agent Chef vs household messages) and implies the feedback is routed externally to builders, which is meaningful context. It doesn't discuss rate limits, privacy of contact info, or what happens to the message, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences: what to pass, when to use it, and the exclusion. Front-loaded with the purpose and no redundant wording.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, and exclusion well. The only gap is granularity on the message field and contact handling, but the output schema likely covers the response. Adequate and complete for the 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'contact' is documented but 'message' has only min/max length. The description tells the agent what the message should be about (a bug, missing feature, or confusion), which compensates for the missing schema description on the core required parameter. That's the baseline 3 – the description adds some meaning but leaves the 2000-char limit and response framing to the schema/output 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?

States a specific verb (pass feedback) and resource (Agent Chef itself), and contrasts with the sibling message_group by explicitly saying 'Not for messages to the household.' An agent can route between send_feedback and message_group without opening schemas.

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?

Gives both when-to-use ('the owner says tell Agent Chef that…' or complains about the tool) and when-not-to-use ('Not for messages to the household'), naming the alternative domain. Nothing is left to inference.

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