Submit Aionis Feedback

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states the action without revealing behavioral traits such as idempotency, required fields, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it offers minimal insight into what happens on submission.

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 sentence with no filler, clearly stating the tool's primary action. However, it is under-specified, which limits its usefulness.

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 opaque request parameter and lack of output schema, the description is wholly inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It lacks any information about request contents or expected behavior.

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?

The single parameter 'request' has zero schema description coverage and is a free-form object. The description provides no information about its structure, required fields, or meaning, leaving the agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' and identifies the resource as 'guide-attributed feedback,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling session-management tools. The 'through the SDK' phrase adds context about the channel.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to submit feedback, whether it follows a session, or what alternatives exist (e.g., aionis_remember). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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