feedback_create

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

No annotations are present, and the description only states 'Record local feedback' without disclosing behavioral traits such as mutation effects, permission requirements, or data persistence. The agent lacks understanding of side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence, which is concise and easy to parse. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured breakdown of parameters or behavior.

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 the absence of an output schema and moderate parameter count, the description lacks essential context about what 'friction' means, how feedback is stored, and how parameters like command_context should be used. It is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema includes 4 parameters with 50% coverage (2 have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, leaving command_context completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 records local feedback about SIFS agent friction, specifying the verb and object. It distinguishes from the sibling feedback_list tool by focusing on creation rather than listing, though it could explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is too minimal to help an agent decide between this and similar tools.

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