record_skill_execution_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions updating aggregate metrics, it doesn't describe whether this is a write operation (implied by 'record' and 'update'), what permissions might be required, whether changes are reversible, or how the update affects system state. For a tool with 17 parameters that appears to modify data, this is a significant transparency 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or unnecessary information. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action and purpose.

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?

For a complex tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, and what appears to be a write operation that updates metrics, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context like when this tool should be used, what the feedback impacts, or how it differs from the agent feedback sibling tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 17 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters beyond what's in the schema. The description doesn't explain what 'skillId' refers to, what the different 'outcome' values mean, how 'qualityGatePass' relates to execution, or the purpose of the many path parameters. This leaves substantial semantic gaps for the agent to interpret parameter meanings.

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 with specific verbs ('record', 'update') and resources ('structured execution feedback for project skills', 'aggregate metrics'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'record_agent_execution_feedback', which appears to serve a similar feedback-recording function for agents rather than skills.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool 'record_agent_execution_feedback' that likely serves a parallel purpose for agents, the absence of any differentiation or usage context leaves the agent without clear decision criteria for selecting between these feedback-recording tools.

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