create_feedback

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds behavioral context: 'takes effect immediately' and 'returns the created feedback IDs and status', which go beyond basic annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action, return value, and alternative. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, one nested object) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral impact. It could mention that weight/metadata are optional, but schema already does so. Almost 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces the trace_id link already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('create feedback'), resource ('for a trace or request'), and the linking mechanism ('by trace_id'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_feedback' by mentioning its use case.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'use update_feedback when correcting an existing record', which is a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use instruction. No other usage guidelines needed.

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