onto_align_feedback

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

No annotations provided, but the description adequately discloses that feedback is stored in the align_feedback table for self-calibrating weights, indicating a persistent write operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no extraneous information.

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 feedback storage tool with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action and effect.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond purpose, meeting the baseline.

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 tool accepts or rejects alignment candidates to improve confidence scoring, distinguishing it from siblings like 'onto_align' (generates alignments) and 'onto_lint_feedback' (lint feedback).

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 implies use after generating alignment candidates, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use.

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