Send feedback

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

Annotations only give the generic write/idempotent/non-destructive profile; the description adds genuinely new traits: it is free and spends no credits, humans read every submission, duplicate (kind, text, run_id) within 24 hours returns the same feedback_id, and there is a rate limit of 20 per hour per account. Those are exactly the facts an agent needs before submitting.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by triggers, content guidance, and operational facts in descending order of importance. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; there is no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, rate limits, deduplication and return identifier well. It does not say what the immediate response contains beyond feedback_id, nor what happens if the 20/hour limit is hit, which are the only notable gaps.

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%, so the enum meanings and run_id pattern are already documented. The description still adds behavioral guidance on content ("Say what the user wanted, what you tried and what came back") and on when run_id applies, which is more than the schema's terse "if any."

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?

"Tell Clipwright what is missing or wrong" states a specific verb and resource, and no sibling tool does anything similar, so the function is unmistakable. The kinds enumerated immediately after anchor what 'feedback' means here.

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 names the triggering condition (no tool does what the user asked; an answer was confusing, wrong or too slow) and explicitly says to do this "instead of rephrasing the request and giving up," which tells the agent both when to call and what not to do instead. It also scopes run_id: "pass run_id when it is about a run."

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