studio_feedback

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value by clarifying that hiding 'never alters test evidence or confidence' — important given 'hide' sounds destructive. It still omits the write-side mechanics: the required revision field implies optimistic concurrency, and nothing explains what happens if the operation object is omitted or if a revision is stale.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the read-or-save scope is front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the final sentence blends usage guidance with the behavioral note in a slightly ambiguous way.

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 a nested object parameter, enum-driven actions, and no output schema, the description is thin. It says nothing about return shape, how votes/rules differ from hides, or how revision conflicts are handled — all things an agent needs before invoking a write path.

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 schema is a nested operation object with five required sub-fields (key, action, value, reason, revision) plus an enum of vote/hide/rule. The description only loosely gestures at these through the words 'feedback,' 'save,' and 'hiding'; it never explains runId, the action types, the value semantics, or the revision counter.

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 gives a concrete verb pair and resource: 'Read or save personal report feedback,' scoped to 'this OS account and project.' It is understandable on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling studio_preferences, so an agent may hesitate between the two.

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?

'Read returned preferences before further investigations' gives one sequencing hint (read first), which is genuinely useful. However there is no guidance on when to save versus read, when the operation object is required, or why this tool should be chosen over studio_preferences.

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