record_preview_feedback

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lacks information about whether feedback can be overwritten, whether it triggers any side effects (e.g., updating preview state), or any authorization needs. The brief description does not compensate for the missing annotations.

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 extremely concise, but at the cost of omitting crucial information. There is no filler, but it could be expanded to cover essential details without becoming verbose.

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?

The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity. It lacks context about when this tool is called in the workflow, what the output schema contains, and how to properly use the parameters. A complete description would mention that this is typically called after getting a preview and that the output confirms the recording.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter roles. It fails to define any of the 6 parameters, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. For example, it's unclear whether 'accepted' means the image is accepted or the feedback is accepted.

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 action (persist), the resource (user feedback), and the specificity (one concrete preview image variant), effectively differentiating it from related tools like list_feedback_tags and list_preview_feedback.

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 does not provide any usage guidelines, such as when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., recording batch feedback or adjusting pipeline). It lacks context about prerequisites or expected flow.

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