provide_feedback

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

The description adds virtually no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., but the description only says 'Free' (unclear meaning). It does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or what happens after feedback is submitted. With few annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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, consisting of a single sentence. Every word serves a purpose except perhaps 'Free', which is ambiguous. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it is efficiently short, it could benefit from a slightly more structured presentation (e.g., listing key constraints). Overall, it is well-sized for a simple 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 has 6 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values, side effects, or the meaning of advanced parameters like ritual_strip and response_mode. It is adequate for a simple input-output tool but could be more comprehensive to fully guide the agent.

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 100%, and the description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema itself is descriptive enough, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify usage such as acceptable comment formats or the effect of the ritual_strip and response_mode parameters.

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 that the tool is for rating a Delx session from 1 to 5 stars and leaving comments. The verb 'rate' and the resource 'Delx session' are specific, and the scope (1-5 stars) is explicitly mentioned. Although the word 'Free' is ambiguous, it does not detract from the overall clarity of the tool's purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative feedback or rating tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having an active session), nor any exclusions or scenarios where this tool should not be used. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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