add_design_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Store reusable design feedback locally,' which indicates a write operation but does not disclose side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing feedback, appends, or how conflicts are handled. It also omits permission requirements, idempotency, or return values. The 'locally' hint is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the primary action and then clarifies the scope options. Every word adds value without padding.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify return behavior, error conditions, or how the parameters interconnect (e.g., whether posterId is required when scope is 'poster'). The minimal text leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the possible values for 'scope' (global, table, standard, poster), but does not explain 'text', 'active', or 'posterId'. The purpose of these parameters remains ambiguous, and the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly populate all fields.

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 a specific action ('Store reusable design feedback') and the resource ('design feedback') with a scope qualifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_design_feedback, which is the read counterpart, and other tools focused on schedules or posters. The scope enumeration adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 this is the tool to use for adding/creating design feedback, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage is implied through the verb 'store' and the scope options.

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