refine_procedure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool modifies executionCount and successRate via EWMA, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with an identifier (3B.4) and conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. Every part is informative.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the parameters do, what the return looks like, or how the tool fits into broader workflows. The description leaves the agent with significant unanswered questions.

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?

The schema has 4 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions in the schema). The description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage. For example, it does not describe what 'id', 'succeeded', 'notes', or 'recordedAt' represent, nor how they should be provided. This is a significant gap.

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 what the tool does: 'Apply caller feedback after a procedure execution. Increments executionCount and updates successRate via EWMA (α=0.2).' This specifies the verb (apply, increments, updates) and the resource (procedure feedback, executionCount, successRate), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being specific to procedure refinement.

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 implies usage 'after a procedure execution', providing some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it include exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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