create_campaign_feedback

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it creates a comment and optionally attaches to a block, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The added context is moderate.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear structure. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 covers the tool's purpose, usage context, parameter guidance, and return value. It could mention that the campaign must exist or handle errors, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 explains 3 of 4 parameters (campaign_id, message, block_id) in detail, including how to obtain campaign_id. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap. This adds value but is incomplete.

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 ('Add a team collaboration feedback comment'), the resource ('campaign'), and its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_campaign_feedback (review) and delete_campaign_feedback, making it easy to select.

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 explains when to use the tool ('during campaign preparation') and references an alternative for viewing comments ('Use list_campaign_feedback'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but provides adequate context.

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