catalog_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Store' implies a write operation, but the description does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if a record already exists. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. It is not verbose, but it fails to convey essential usage information.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot infer what record_id should be, what reviewer format is expected, what comment should contain, or what the tool returns. The minimal description does not adequately cover the tool's complexity.

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 explain the parameters. It only mentions 'one exact probe/assessment' but does not define record_id, reviewer, comment, or the meaning of preference values. The enum is in the schema, but the description adds no context about their semantics or relationships.

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 states a clear verb 'Store' and resource 'user preference for one exact probe/assessment', and explicitly differentiates from a global plugin prohibition, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like plugin_verify. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'probe/assessment' or what record_id refers to, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'not a global plugin prohibition' hints that another tool might handle global settings, but it does not name it or provide conditions for selection. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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