submit_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the side effect (publishing a NIP-90 event), the rating values, and idempotency guarantee. It does not, however, mention that the event is public or any required permissions, but overall it is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences long, each providing essential information: purpose, technical details, and a follow-up suggestion. No redundant or vague wording; every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects. It explains the purpose, event type, idempotency, and a suggested next step. It could be slightly improved by describing the response format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it maps the enum values 'positive' and 'negative' to numeric ratings '1' and '0', and clarifies the optionality of 'provider_npub' based on job history. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the optional parameter's context.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Rate a completed job (mirrors the web app 👍/👎 buttons).' It specifies the action (rate), the resource (completed job), and even the underlying protocol event (NIP-90 kind 7000). This is sufficiently specific and distinct from sibling tools like submit_and_pay_job or submit_diff_review.

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 clear usage context: feedback should be given after a job is completed, and it mentions idempotency behavior. It also suggests a next action ('add_contact' after positive rating). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternative tools for other feedback scenarios.

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