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

Annotations only convey coarse safety hints (not read-only, not open-world, not destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the draft is moved and the target queue is immutable, implying the submission is a one-way transition. It does not describe result or error behavior, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes information: the action, the target object, the destination's immutability, and the readiness condition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the key workflow conditions: the object must be a complete owner-bound draft, readiness must have passed, and the queue is immutable. It does not spell out the confirmation parameter or how to obtain readiness, but those are available from schema constants and sibling tool names.

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 schema describes productId but leaves confirmation undocumented, giving 50% coverage. The description clarifies that productId should reference a complete owner-bound draft, which adds context beyond the schema, but it does not compensate for the confirmation parameter. The const value 'SUBMIT_AGENT_PACK' is largely self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not strong.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Move' and identifies the exact resource ('complete owner-bound draft') and destination ('immutable Agent AVCP queue'). It also names a readiness gate, which separates it from nearby siblings like create_ai_pack_draft, publish_ai_pack, and run_ai_pack_audition.

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 phrase 'after readiness passes' gives an explicit precondition for when the tool is appropriate, while 'owner-bound draft' defines the eligible input. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the readiness condition and sibling set make the intended workflow clear.

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