record_trajectory_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose persistence, side effects, duplicate-feedback handling, whether the trajectory state changes, or what happens if step_index is invalid.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by clear usage mapping and a compact parameter list. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation, with no wasted prose.

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 description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool, especially since an output schema exists. However, with no annotations and a mutation-like recording action, it should say more about side effects and validation to be fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the allowed feedback values, explains correction_text, specifies that step_index is 0-based with a default to the last recorded step, and describes user_prompt context. All four parameters gain meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record evaluation feedback for a captured trajectory step.' This is clearly distinct from all listed sibling tools, none of which handle trajectory feedback.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool ('when the user reacts to a result') and maps natural-language reactions to concrete feedback values, including correction examples. It does not state when not to use it, but that omission is minor for this distinct tool.

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