ava_feedback

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint and readOnlyHint false, so the tool mutates state. The description adds only 'help improve response quality', which is vague. It does not clarify what gets changed (e.g., feedback record created, model retraining triggered) or any side effects like rate limits or required permissions.

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 two sentences, but the first sentence 'Interact with Ava, DoiT's AI-powered cloud assistant' is somewhat redundant. The second sentence carries the true purpose. It is efficiently short, but the first sentence could be trimmed without loss.

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 destructive nature, nested schema, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain where to find conversationId/answerId, how customerContext works, or what happens after submission. It lacks guidance for proper usage in the broader context of Ava interactions.

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 high (all four parameters have descriptions), setting a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like conversationId, answerId, or feedback. No syntax, format, or relationship between parameters is clarified.

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 verb 'submit feedback' and the resource 'Ava answer'. While it begins with a broad 'Interact with Ava', it quickly narrows to feedback submission. It differentiates from sibling tools like ask_ava_streaming and ask_ava_sync by its distinct purpose, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not advise against using it for asking questions, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a conversation or answer ID. The description leaves usage context entirely implicit.

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