merovingian_feedback

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'submit feedback' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether feedback is stored, immutable, triggers notifications) or required permissions. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence is informative. The structure could be improved with a markdown table or bulleted list, but it remains clear and efficient, earning a high score.

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?

The description covers the basic action and parameters, but leaves gaps: no mention of the output schema (which exists), no constraints on target_id validity, and no behavioral effects of submitting feedback. Given the lack of annotations and a moderate number of parameters, the description is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all four parameters: target_id ('ID of the report or change'), outcome ('One of: accepted, rejected, modified'), target_type ('Type of target (e.g., report, change)'), and context ('Explanation of why'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema types. However, it could explicitly list outcome as an enum and mention format constraints for target_id.

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 'Submit feedback on an assessment or change' uses a specific verb + resource, clearly indicating the tool's action and domain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (register, scan, add_consumer, etc.) by being the only feedback-related operation. The mention of target types ('report' or 'change') further clarifies the scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., must a report or change exist first?), or scenarios where feedback is inappropriate. The description simply states the action without contextualizing its role in a workflow.

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