add_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool records correction content and deletion intent, which is useful. However, it doesn't clarify side effects (e.g., whether the memory is actually modified), any permissions needed, or what happens after recording feedback. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, consisting of two short clauses that immediately convey the core purposes. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the primary use case. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description mentions both use cases but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it directly modifies memory, or how it interacts with delete_memory. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but lacks crucial details about outcomes and side effects, making it a minimum viable description.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds context that feedback_content is the user's original words and conversation_first_message is used to generate a conversation_id, reinforcing schema info but not adding new meaning. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not significantly elevate parameter understanding.

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 states the tool is called when modifying/correcting existing memories and after deleting a memory to record deletion intent. This clearly indicates the tool's role in managing memory feedback, though it doesn't use a direct verb like 'adds' and presents two related but distinct use cases. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on memory correction/deletion rather than message handling or KB 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 explicitly provides trigger conditions: 'when modifying/correcting existing memory' and 'after successful memory deletion'. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate invocation scenarios relative to sibling tools like delete_memory and add_message.

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