sound_record_feedback

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real context beyond these by stating it 'May write local history according to the request's persistence settings' and 'never changes the FL project', scoping exactly what side effect occurs. It stops short of explaining the non-idempotent behavior the annotation hints at, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (purpose, scoping, side effects, anti-pattern). Slightly dense with several clauses per sentence but essentially free of 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 mutation tool with a rich nested schema and an available output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it records, what it scopes, what it writes, what it never touches, and which sibling to use instead. Return values are rightly left to the output schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining the scoping relationship between palette_id and the optional role_id/assignment_id, and by defining what 'descriptors' represent (qualities the user wants more or less of). It omits hard_exclusion, hard_preference, desired/undesired_descriptors, and note, so it does not fully compensate for every field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Record the user's explicit verdict on a palette', with the downstream purpose ('so future picks follow it'). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming sound_plan_palette as the tool for generating replacements, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('record the user's explicit verdict') and when-not ('Never infer acceptance from silence'), plus a named alternative for the adjacent need ('use sound_plan_palette with base_palette_id for that'). Nothing about selecting this tool is left to inference.

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