Get feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the call is non-blocking ('without waiting') and it has a side effect (marks the plan as being worked on). It omits what happens when no plan is pending and any permission requirements, keeping it below 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?

The trigger phrase is front-loaded and there is little filler, but the middle clause 'code changes to make in the repository the deck explains' is grammatically tangled and slows comprehension of the core meaning.

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 single-parameter read-with-side-effect tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return concept and the mutation, but omits empty-result behavior and any auth or error conditions an agent would need for robust handling.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions deck_id or its format. The parameter name is self-explanatory and there is only one required param, so an agent can still call it correctly, but the description adds no meaning beyond the 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 and resource: 'Return the pending change plan left in the viewer' plus the side effect of marking it 'as being worked on'. The parenthetical 'without waiting' implicitly separates it from the sibling wait_for_feedback, though it never names that sibling outright. Purpose is clear enough for correct selection among the feedback tools.

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?

'Use when the user says they left feedback' gives a concrete trigger, and 'without waiting' signals the non-blocking distinction from wait_for_feedback. It stops short of naming resolve_feedback/reply_feedback as alternatives or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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