Submit Usage Feedback

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that feedback is sent to the team, specifies allowed content, and warns against including secrets. It does not describe the response/return behavior, but for a feedback submission tool this is a minor 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy with the schema while adding essential context.

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 relatively simple tool (2 params, one nested object, no output schema), the description fully covers when to use, what to pass, and what to avoid. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning by naming which option fields to include (workflow_id or wf_id, run_id, document_id, tool_name, client_name, tags) and explicitly warns against secrets. It clarifies the alias relationship between wf_id and workflow_id, going 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 tool's purpose: to submit detailed feedback about the okraPDF MCP server. It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('usage feedback'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning concrete triggers like reproducible issues, confusing workflows, and agent-DX notes.

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: 'Use this only when the user asks to report feedback or when a reproducible MCP tool/app issue... should be sent.' It also provides exclusion guidance ('Do not include secrets or API keys') and instructs which context fields to include, making it easy for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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