hive_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses upsert semantics (one row per entry/user/agent, latest verdict wins), public visibility of the verdict, note and name to anyone who can read the entry, access filtering that returns not_found, all-or-nothing atomicity for batch entry_ids, and the ranking side effect.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence carries information about semantics or constraints. Some sentences are long run-ons (the helpful/stale guidance in particular) that could be split for faster scanning.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers access rules, write semantics, visibility, and batch behavior thoroughly. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'agent' parameter and any hint about what the call returns on success.

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; it explains the verdict vocabulary, what the note should contain per verdict, and the entry_id/entry_ids relationship including the batch limit and failure mode. The 'agent' parameter is never explained, and the empty-string defaults on verdict and entry_id are left unaddressed.

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 — "Report helpful|stale|wrong on an entry your work tested" — plus the scope constraint that only readable entries qualify. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hive_write, hive_search, and hive_get without inspecting any schema.

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 when-to-use conditions for each verdict value (helpful = work used the entry and it held; stale/wrong = what is true now) and explains the entry_id vs entry_ids choice with a cap of 16. It does not name sibling tools or say when to prefer them over feedback, so tool-level routing guidance is absent.

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