minerals_submit_agent_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool submits feedback, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether submission persists, if it triggers review, idempotency, rate limits, or auth requirements). For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the main use cases. It is concise with no fluff, though it could be slightly shorter without losing meaning. It earns a 4 for efficient delivery.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level purpose but does not mention expected return values, submission confirmation, or any side effects. The schema covers parameter details, and the description covers the intent, but for a submission tool with no annotations, one might expect more context on what happens after submission. It is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, including enums with descriptions. The description mentions 'evolution proposal, mineral dataset addition request, regulatory edge case, or protocol improvement,' which loosely maps to the feedback_type enum but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: an agent or operator submits evolution proposals, dataset additions, edge cases, or protocol improvements to evolve the Minerals Oracle engine. It uses a specific verb (submit) and resource (feedback to the engine), and the listed types distinguish it from sibling read/check tools like verify_mineral_lot_compliance or list_trade_precedents.

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?

The description implies usage for submitting improvement ideas, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools like minerals_list_evolution_proposals (which likely lists existing proposals) or when not to submit. Usage context is clear enough, but no alternative routing is provided.

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