copilot_feedback

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful scope ('process-local') and two negative guarantees (no inference, no routing change), but says nothing about persistence, idempotency, repeat submissions, or what happens if the job is not actually finished/verified. For an unannotated mutating 'record' call this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the scope disclaimers follow. The parenthetical '(process-local)' is slightly cryptic but earns its place as a scope cue.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and side-effect boundaries, which is the core need. It still leaves gaps on failure modes and on when the record is actually consumed, which matter because nothing else in the structured data explains them.

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%, yet the description never names or explains the two parameters directly. It hints that the outcome must be verified and the job must be finished/routed, which adds some meaning around the outcome enum, but jobId semantics (which job, must it be one this orchestrator routed?) are left entirely to 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 object ('Record the orchestrator-verified outcome of a finished routed job'), which is far more precise than the name alone. The closing clause ('Does not send inference or change routing') implicitly separates it from routing/inference siblings like copilot_orchestrate and copilot_delegate, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is implied by the preconditions 'finished' and 'orchestrator-verified', which tell an agent the job must already be complete and verified before calling. No alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given, so an agent must infer routing.

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