Send Feedback

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: a human reads every report and approves fixes, sending never spends credit, and secrets/personal data/private code must be excluded. It omits what the call returns or whether a report can be retracted, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then cadence, then content guidance, then privacy and cost constraints. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable rule; nothing is restated from the schema.

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 six parameters, three required, no output schema and light annotations, the description covers what to report, when, in what shape, what to omit, and the cost implication. The only shortfall is that it never says what the caller gets back after submitting, though the absence of an output schema makes that low-cost.

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 nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by instructing 'say what you tried, what you expected and what came back', which maps the optional attempted/expected/actual fields to a concrete reporting shape an agent would not infer from terse field descriptions alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — tell Better Design about a bug, missing feature or wrong output — and scopes it to 'its tools or API'. This is unmistakably distinct from the guide/review/builder siblings, which are all design-content tools rather than a feedback channel.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: 'Send one report per problem, once you have finished what the user asked.' That timing and batching rule is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs. No alternatives are named, but no competing feedback tool exists among siblings, so the gap is minor.

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