Feedback Paste

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it says each answer becomes typed text under its question, each voice note becomes a clip transcribed in the background, and send=True makes it count as the listener's Send while send=False keeps it unsent. What remains unstated is failure behavior (unmatched file names, unknown project/round) and whether anything is overwritten if answers already exist.

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?

Every sentence carries useful information — nothing is filler — but the whole thing is one dense, run-on block with sentence fragments and an embedded line break. The most important framing (what this tool actually does) is obscured by broken grammar, so it is under-edited rather than merely long.

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 five-parameter write tool with an output schema and no annotations, it covers the essential workflow: where the data comes from, how it is filed, and how 'send' changes downstream state. Missing pieces (permissions, error handling for unmatched files, behavior on repeat pastes) are secondary but would matter to an agent calling this blind.

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 all five parameters; it substantively covers three (text as the verbatim message, files as voice notes with the q<n>_<time>.webm naming rule and the {'q': n, 'path': p} alternative form, send as the sent/unsent switch). 'project' and 'round' are only implicitly defined by context, which leaves a gap, but the added meaning on the parameters that actually need explanation is strong.

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 conveys a specific action: taking answers delivered out-of-band (chat, mail, phone) and inserting them into a given feedback round, with text and voice notes mapped to their questions. It names the related tool paths (feedback_page(share=True), feedback_read, feedback_wait), which helps distinguish it from siblings. The opening fragment ('Answers that came back as a message, into their feedback round') is grammatically incomplete, which slows decoding of an otherwise clear purpose.

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 specifies the triggering scenario precisely: a listener on the shared page pressed 'Send my answers'/'Copy my answers' and the result arrived as a message rather than through the page. It also states the downstream consequence ('so feedback_read and feedback_wait work as for a page answered here'), giving the agent the correct follow-up path. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a different ingestion route for non-message answers).

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