save_trade_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose whether existing feedback is overwritten, what permissions are required, or what happens if the trade_id is invalid. The note that feedback is shown on the trade's page is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action, resource, and visibility scope.

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 two-parameter save tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and display location. However, with no annotations and only 50% schema coverage, it leaves important behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, validation errors, and prerequisites unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: feedback has a schema description, while trade_id is undocumented but self-explanatory. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that the feedback is AI feedback attached to a single trade, but it does not explain format, length, or overwrite 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 states a specific verb and resource: attach AI feedback to a single trade. It also clarifies the effect is visible on the trade's page. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like annotate_trade or save_ai_report, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as annotate_trade, write_day_note, or save_ai_report. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of AI feedback on a single trade, leaving the agent to infer the correct context.

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