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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation that is not flagged destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: whether the change executes immediately or becomes a proposal depends on organization settings, and the response indicates which path was taken. This helps the agent anticipate side effects and response semantics.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses only two sentences. The status list is directly useful, and the second sentence explains a critical behavioral nuance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important ambiguity: whether the status change is immediate or requires approval. It also gives a hint about the response. It could be more complete by addressing error cases or how proposals are later resolved, but the schema and annotations fill many gaps.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds little new parameter-level meaning; it repeats the status enum values and mentions a response status field, but does not deepen understanding of org, note, request_id, or IDs beyond what the schema already provides.

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's action: moving a form submission through a defined pipeline of statuses, and it enumerates the five allowed states. This is specific enough to identify the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like decide_submission or update_form_pipeline.

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 description explains how the tool behaves (immediate execution vs. filing a proposal) but gives no direct guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or state conditions like 'use decide_submission when...' so an agent must infer usage purely from the name and general wording.

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