submit_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'submit' without any details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens after submission. This is insufficient for a tool that likely creates a record.

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 concise sentence that includes the verb, resource, and endpoint. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the feedback structure is completely unspecified, leaving a gap in how to construct the input. The description is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema has one parameter 'feedback' which is an open object with additionalProperties true, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'structured feedback' without specifying any structure, making it hard for an agent to know what to send.

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 submits structured feedback for a prior scoring request, which is a specific verb+resource and context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle scoring, usage, and workflow operations.

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 by mentioning 'prior scoring request', but it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided, so the usage is only implied.

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