slowave_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses append-only semantics, constraint rules (stale requires stale_reason; superseded requires replacement_memory_id; contribution required when used), and server behavior via return fields like 'rejected' and 'accepted_event_ids.' It even notes the non-obvious nuance that 'silence under partial is not negative.'

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with purpose and exclusions, then organized into Args and Returns sections. Given the complexity and the total lack of schema-described parameters, this density is appropriate rather than bloated.

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 tool with no annotations, no schema parameter documentation, and complex nested inputs, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, exclusions, constraints, parameter semantics, batch behavior, and the full return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, including what happens to rejected or outstanding feedback.

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 fully compensate. It does: each parameter is explained in the Args section, including required vs optional fields in nested structures, enum meanings (used|not_used, helped|no_effect|harmed|unknown), mutual exclusivity, and the meaning of 'coverage.' This goes far beyond what the bare JSON schema provides.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Record append-only evidence about retrieved memories and procedures.' It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling tool by stating 'Task outcome does not belong here; slowave_commit owns it,' so an agent can distinguish it from the other slowave tools without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('Task outcome does not belong here') and names the alternative that owns that case (slowave_commit). It also ties the tool to the retrieval workflow by noting retrieval_id comes from 'activate/recall' and clarifies batch vs scalar usage with 'Scalar feedback fields and items are mutually exclusive.' This is enough to route an agent toward the correct tool.

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