Submit feedback

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds the scope constraint but does not disclose additional behaviors such as confirmation, rate limits, or side effects beyond the basic submission action.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The purpose and exclusions are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand scope.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential context: what to submit and what not, with no missing information for correct agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to detail parameters. It does not add any extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides for subject, body, and kind.

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 submits free-text feedback about the tool itself, distinguishing it from page content feedback. It explicitly names a sibling tool (add_comment) for the alternative use case.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (feedback about tela/tela-mcp) and when not to use (page content), with a direct reference to add_comment as the appropriate alternative.

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