prepare_qc_feedback_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the critical non-mutating behavior ('does not write to Survey Solutions') and the dry-run nature, which is the most important safety trait. It does not detail what it returns or any validation behavior, but for a non-writing prep tool the key behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the essential non-write qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain expected inputs and behavioral context. It fails to describe the expected structure of the issue objects, the role of profile, the meaning of default_action, or what a 'dry-run feedback batch' looks like upon return. An agent would still need to discover significant details from elsewhere.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely implies the 'issues' parameter via 'structured issue list'. The 'profile' and 'default_action' parameters are not explained at all, and the shape of an 'issue' remains opaque given the schema just uses additionalProperties: true.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Convert') with a clear resource ('structured issue list' → 'dry-run feedback batch'). The phrase 'does not write to Survey Solutions' distinguishes it from the sibling apply_qc_feedback_batch without needing to open schemas.

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 clearly frames this as a dry-run preparation step and explicitly states it does not write, which tells an agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative apply_qc_feedback_batch or state 'use this before applying changes', so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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