Edit feedback item

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

The description discloses that every change is recorded as a comment naming old and new values, that nothing is silently rewritten, and that omitted fields are left alone. It also explains the author parameter's role in the audit trail. These go beyond the annotations, which only state readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true.

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 well-organized into purpose, usage, args, and behavior, but it is slightly longer than necessary. The rationale sentence ('Feedback is filed fast and imprecisely on purpose') is contextual but not essential. Still, every sentence earns its place and the front-loading is excellent.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needed to add use-case clarity and behavioral notes, which it does thoroughly. It covers correction semantics, audit trail, partial updates, and sibling tool differentiation, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by summarizing the args, explaining the author default ('use your agent name so the trail says who re-triaged it'), and clarifying that fields can be omitted and left unchanged. This adds genuine value beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Correct an item after it was filed' and enumerates the editable fields (title, body, severity, type, project, route), making the verb and resource explicit. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like loopback_update_status (progress) and loopback_link_change (fix) by explicitly stating 'This is for correcting the REPORT.'

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use examples ('re-rank a severity you now understand, fix a mis-guessed type, correct a typo, or move an item to the right project') and explicitly names the alternatives: 'To record progress use loopback_update_status, and to record the fix use loopback_link_change.' This fully clarifies use vs alternatives.

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