Submit feedback

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add behavioral context. It mentions credit-back subject to eligibility rules, but does not elaborate on eligibility or other behaviors like clearing votes, which is partially captured in schema.

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 two sentences long, no fluff, and front-loaded with the primary action and key nuance (credit-back on thumbs-down). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite 5 parameters, the description does not explain parameter interdependencies (imageUrl/imageId), success/error responses, or the behavior of the empty vote string. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 80%, and the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It restates that vote is thumbs up/down and that creditBack is optional, but does not clarify the required relationship between imageUrl and imageId or explain the empty string vote clearing.

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 'Submit thumbs up/down feedback on a generated image', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools that focus on image editing operations like blur, create video, enhance, etc.

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 providing feedback with optional credit-back, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it explain the eligibility rules for credit-back or when to clear a vote.

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