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

Annotations already declare the write nature (readOnlyHint=false), open-world behavior, and non-destructiveness. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, 'Returns the new state', but says nothing about required permissions, what state transition occurs, or failure/validation behavior for a mutation that feeds a review workflow.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return-value note; nothing is padded. The phrasing 'the changes we asked for' is informal but compact and informative.

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?

For a low-complexity one-param mutation, the description covers the trigger condition and the response ('new state'), and annotations cover the safety profile. It still omits what happens if resubmission is not allowed in the current state and gives no guidance on the sibling submit tool, leaving a modest gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'business' acting-context semantics (omit to act as yourself). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (resubmit verification / send back for review) with an implied state transition, which distinguishes it reasonably from agenta_verify_submit. It does not explicitly name any sibling tool, so the agent must infer the boundary from the 'after making the changes we asked for' condition.

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?

The clause 'after making the changes we asked for' gives an implicit when-to-use condition tied to a prior rejection, but there is no contrast with agenta_verify_submit (initial submission) or any stated prerequisite such as an existing declined verification state. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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