Share Abyss Feedback

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

Discloses it is a canonical mutation without idempotency key, requires human approval, and lists failure handling behaviors (login_required, permission_denied, etc.). Adds context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections for when to use, not to use, effects, failure handling. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be more concise without losing essential 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?

Covers usage context, failure modes, and human approval, but lacks parameter documentation. With 9 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter-level guidance.

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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters like email, score, consent, message, category, confirmed, preference, or client. The action enum is described in purpose, but other parameters lack guidance.

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 clearly states the tool offers a survey, submits feedback, prepares email, manages prompt preference, and subscribes to newsletter. It distinguishes from siblings by listing specific actions not covered by other tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after 3 successful calls or user praise/frustration/bug/feature request) and when not to use (interrupting primary task, without explicit consent, narrower tool available, project scope unresolved, declined action). Provides clear guidelines.

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