update_campaign_feedback

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

Annotations are all false, and the description adds valuable behavioral traits: authentication via API key, max 10 concurrent requests, and respect for read-only/dry-run modes. This goes beyond the minimal annotation set, providing crucial context for safe invocation. No contradiction with 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 concise (approximately 100 words) and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, then usage guidance, followed by parameter descriptions and return value. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The front-loaded main purpose helps agents quickly understand the tool.

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 (4 parameters, one optional, with output schema), the description covers obtaining IDs, account usage, return format, and behavioral constraints (auth, rate limit, modes). It is mostly complete but could improve by mentioning idempotency implications or error scenarios.

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 0%, but the description's Args section thoroughly explains each parameter: campaign_id and feedback_id include sources (list_campaigns, list_campaign_feedback), message describes its role as replacement text, and account is explained as optional with an example and reference to list_accounts. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 updates the text of an existing campaign feedback comment, uses a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'campaign feedback comment,' and distinguishes from siblings like create_campaign_feedback and delete_campaign_feedback by specifying it edits an existing comment.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('Use to edit a previously left collaboration note') and how to obtain required IDs ('Use list_campaign_feedback to discover feedback IDs'). It also mentions authentication, rate limits, and mode behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other actions.

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