onto_enforce_feedback

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

The description discloses key behaviors: dismissals are suppressed after 3 occurrences, and feedback is stored for self-calibration. With no annotations provided, this adequately informs the agent about side effects and persistence, though acceptance behavior could be more detailed.

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 exceptionally concise, using three short sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and storage effects. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the description covers core purpose and behavior, it lacks mention of return values (no output schema) and omits comparisons to similar feedback tools among siblings. For a simple feedback tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline score for parameter semantics.

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 dismisses enforce violations to improve future enforce runs. It uniquely identifies the resource as 'enforce violation', distinguishing it from sibling tools like onto_lint_feedback or onto_align_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 usage is implied by the name and action, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like onto_enforce or other feedback tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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