Mnemostack Feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious downstream behavior: Q-learning updates of source weights and inhibition-of-return exposure. It does not say what happens to a hit after feedback, whether it is reversible, or what reward/hit_id semantics govern the mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two highest-value operational hints. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly fragmented.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description captures the key learning/reinforcement loop. For a 7-parameter tool with 14% schema coverage and zero annotations, though, it leaves the reward and identity parameters under-explained.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it meaningfully clarifies two opaque parameters: 'signal' (the clicked value triggers IOR) and 'sources' (retriever labels from mnemostack_search). The remaining five parameters (hit_id, reward, query, source, query_type) get no added meaning beyond their names.

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 explicit feedback for stateful recall learning.' This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like mnemostack_search and the write-oriented mnemostack_remember, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Offers concrete conditional guidance for one case ('Use signal=clicked to also record inhibition-of-return exposure') and tells the agent where to source the 'sources' value (mnemostack_search results). However, it gives no general when-to-use vs. when-not guidance relative to the other mnemostack tools.

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