Create Human Feedback

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation; the description confirms the write intent. It adds the scoping detail that the feedback is tied to a RAG feedback config, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior. With annotations present, this is acceptable minimal context.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words. It earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with four fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description combined with the schema provides enough context to understand the operation; it could mention expected return values, but that's not required given the schema richness.

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 paraphrases the four parameters (human feedback, agent's output, RAG feedback config) but doesn't add format, constraints, or syntax beyond the schema.

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 action (submit), the object (human feedback), and the context (on an agent's output for a given RAG feedback config). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a unique feedback submission operation.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: submitting human feedback for a specific RAG feedback config. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, but the context is sufficient for this focused tool.

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