update_feedback_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: addressed/declined are terminal and cannot be changed, declined requires a note (validation rule), and the 'soft teeth' effect—advancing status is not enforced by other tools but leaving feedback open keeps it visible in the inbox. This goes well beyond a simple status update.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core lifecycle. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—state transitions, terminality, note requirement, and downstream impact—with no fluff or repetition. The 'soft teeth' metaphor is efficient and memorable.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, behavioral constraints, validation rules, and relationship to other tools. It is comprehensive for a status-update tool, though it does not mention the return value or error conditions, which are less critical for understanding usage.

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 parameters are already well-described. The description adds value by explaining the status lifecycle, terminal states, and the note requirement for declined status, which enriches understanding of the 'status' and 'note' parameters beyond their schema descriptions. It does not need to repeat parameter details.

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: advancing a learner feedback through its lifecycle (open → acknowledged → addressed/declined). It specifies the resource (learner feedback) and the action (advance lifecycle state), and distinguishes itself from siblings like record_learner_feedback (creation) and get_teacher_inbox (viewing) by emphasizing status transitions.

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 context on when to use the tool: when you need to advance feedback status, and explains the consequences of not using it (open feedback stays glowing in get_teacher_inbox, but no hard gates are blocked). It also references related tools (close_lesson_loop, get_teacher_inbox), giving clear situational guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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