Update feedback status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the note is recorded as a comment for the audit trail, the author defaults to 'agent', and status changes follow a defined workflow. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core action, the second lists arguments compactly, and the third gives targeted guidance for when to use this tool versus the resolve sibling. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the rich schema, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. It explains the workflow, audit trail behavior, and how to avoid misusing it for final closure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter fully. The description adds minor usage nuance (e.g., 'Use fixed after making the change') but largely repeats schema-provided information about the note and author defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Move a feedback item through the workflow') and enumerates the exact state transitions. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'loopback_resolve_feedback' by reserving that tool for final verified/wontfix closure.

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 provides clear context: it maps the workflow order, directs to use 'fixed' after making the change, and names loopback_resolve_feedback as the tool for final closure. It does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools like loopback_update_feedback, but the workflow framing gives enough guidance for most cases.

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