record_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful system effect -- 'Anything marked skipped or wrong_mood is never recommended again' -- which is durable state change worth knowing. However, it omits idempotency, auth/permission needs, error behavior, and whether feedback can be changed after recording.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the allowed values, then the consequence. Every sentence carries weight, though the sentimental framing of 'the valuable one' is mildly editorial rather than operational.

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 not be described, and the reaction semantics are covered well. The one gap is the undocumented required `video_id` and no statement of the recording's persistence or reversibility, which leaves the agent guessing on a required field.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully enumerates and interprets the `reaction` values, which the schema does not (no enum). But `video_id` is never explained -- the agent must infer where a video id comes from -- leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Record what the listener thought of a recommendation'), making it a feedback sink that is easily distinguished from the sibling recommender tools. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Use is implied by the recommender sibling set (call this after a recommendation is consumed), and it hints at the value of one reaction type. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as explain_recommendation.

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