feedback

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

The annotations supply readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and no destructive hint. The description adds important behavior: duplicate observers cannot add votes, verification criteria, and evidence is not independently attested. This gives useful context beyond the idempotency annotation.

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 and front-loads the purpose. It isn't padded, although the verification/evidence clauses could be split into smaller, chunk new ideas for readability.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description covers only the core workflow and verification conditions. It does not sufficiently clarify the role of all fields (e.g., `id`, `problem`, `signals`) or explicitly position the tool against its siblings, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 schema coverage only at 13%, the description bridges some gaps—it hints at the meaning of `attempt_id`, `revision`, `result`, `environment`, and `evidence` — but it does not explain `problem`, `signals`, or the nested `evidence`/ `environment` structure in detail. Partial support, not full compensation.

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 explicitly says 'Report a checked result for a lesson revision and execution identity' and clearly identifies the resource and the action. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like `record` or `amend` or say what is the difference.

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?

Implicit usage conditions are provided: verification requires nonempty fix, matching environment and evidence, and branches/relevance are separate. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs. another tool' and no direction on exclusions/alternatives.

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