send_feedback

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that delivery happens through two channels (email and Slack) and targets a specific team, which tells the agent the effect is an outbound notification.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences deliver purpose and trigger conditions with no wasted clauses. The trailing parenthetical '(User feedback logging.)' is mild redundancy with the opening sentence, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What an agent needs to call it correctly — purpose, triggers, channels, parameters — is present, leaving only minor gaps like any confirmation or error 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the category vocabulary. The description adds no syntax, format, or per-parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Forward), a clear resource (user feedback, feature requests, complaints, exit reasons), and the destination (the Fodda team via email and Slack). No sibling tool overlaps this function, so an agent can identify it immediately without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions — call whenever a user shares feedback, with concrete examples (wants to leave, reports a problem, suggests an improvement). It lacks an explicit when-not statement, but no sibling tool competes for this behavior, so the routing guidance is effectively complete.

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