Add a feedback event

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutability is clear. The description adds the 'mock' context and 'linked to original ticket', but does not disclose potential side effects, whether the ticket must exist, or behavior on duplicate idempotency keys beyond the annotation's implication.

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 unnecessary words. It immediately communicates the core purpose.

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 add operation, the description is minimally sufficient with annotations and schema covering idempotency and parameter details. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the ticket must already exist) and does not clarify the difference from tickets_add_reply, making it a minimum viable description.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only alludes to the author roles and linking to a ticket. It does not mention 'message', 'idempotency_key', or 'solution_confirmed', leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. While the schema has title/enum/constraints, the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('mock user, L2 or developer response linked to the original ticket'). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like feedback_list and tickets_add_reply by specifying the mock role context.

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 a use case: adding simulated feedback responses from user/L2/developer roles. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like tickets_add_reply, nor provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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