submit_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 storage semantics ('Stored for the team to read'), the absence of a reply channel, a concrete rate limit (max 20 per 24h), and a data-sensitivity constraint (no credentials, customer records, confidential plan content). These are exactly the traits an agent needs and that structured fields do not supply.

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 purpose, then layered constraints (storage, no reply, confidentiality, rate limit) in tight clauses. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers behavior thoroughly for a low-complexity submission tool. The remaining gap is guidance on the undocumented 'projectId' parameter and the nested 'context' object, which leaves the definition slightly short of complete.

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 60%. The description adds real meaning to 'summary' (self-explanatory, since there is no reply channel) and enumerates the 'kind' values, but it never mentions 'projectId' or explains 'context'/'details', so it only partially compensates for the uncovered parameters. Baseline 3 fits.

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 the ProductBrain team how PB should improve') and enumerates the concrete feedback categories (feature, friction, bug, note). No sibling tool overlaps, so differentiation is inherent, and an agent can tell exactly what this does.

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 clear context for when to use it via the category enumeration and an implicit exclusion ('not added to any plan'), plus a batching hint tied to the rate limit. It does not name an alternative, but no sibling tool offers a comparable path, 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.