record_context_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does reasonably well: it discloses the three verdict values, the upsert behavior ("the same workspace, normalized query, and file updates one record"), and explicit non-effects (no conversation memory, no change to import or call edges). It omits any mention of validation failures, unknown-file handling, or authorization, which is the remaining gap for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then verdict vocabulary, then exclusions, then identity/upsert rule. Nothing is padding; each sentence adds a distinct fact an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, and the description covers purpose, verdict vocabulary, and deduplication semantics for a 4-parameter write tool. The gaps are the undocumented `reason` parameter and the absence of error/failure behavior, which keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it enumerates the verdict vocabulary and implies query normalization and that file_path is a workspace-relative file, plus a composite key of workspace+query+file. The `reason` parameter is never described, and none of the four parameters get type, format, or constraint detail in the text.

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+resource ("Record explicit retrieval feedback for one workspace file and query") and immediately scopes it against adjacent tools by ruling out conversation memory storage and import/call-edge mutation. An agent can distinguish it from store_memory and build_context without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to call it (explicit retrieval feedback on a specific file+query) and provides a when-not via "does not store agent conversation memory," steering the agent toward store_memory for that need. It stops short of naming sibling feedback tools (list/delete/clear_context_feedback) as follow-ups, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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