sound_selection_record_feedback

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a valuable non-obvious behavior: 'silence is never inferred' (i.e., absence of feedback is not treated as acceptance). This is a meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's semantics. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Update bounded local ranking feedback') and includes a critical behavioral note. However, the phrasing is somewhat opaque, which slightly reduces clarity, but it is concise and well-structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the request schema is fully documented, the description lacks essential context for correct use. It does not explain what 'bounded local ranking' means, when to record feedback, or how this tool fits into the broader sound_selection workflow. An agent would struggle to determine appropriate invocation conditions.

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%, and the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for the request object and its fields (e.g., 'Explicit accepted, rejected, or neutral palette feedback'). The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update bounded local ranking feedback; silence is never inferred' is cryptic; it does not explicitly say 'record feedback' but the tool name and title make the purpose clear. It vaguely mentions 'bounded local ranking feedback' without explaining what that means, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sound_selection_apply or postfader_review_record_feedback.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many siblings. The description gives no context about when feedback should be recorded, what constitutes a valid use case, or any alternatives or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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