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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a significant side effect ('may induce candidate strategies in the engine'), which is valuable context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions, leaving the mutation profile incomplete.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the side effect second. The section references (§24, §10) are cryptic but do not add much length. It is appropriately front-loaded and economical.

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 six parameters, three required, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the required inputs, the expected format of the result object, what verifier_result entails, or how the output schema relates to the submission. The side effect is mentioned but not elaborated. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation from this description alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters, but it provides no explanation of what 'result', 'metrics', 'success', 'failure_modes', or 'verifier_result' mean or how they should be structured. The phrase 'structured outcome' is vague and adds nothing beyond the schema field names.

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 clear verb ('Submit') and a specific resource ('structured outcome of an experience episode'), making the tool's primary action unambiguous. It references internal sections (§24, §10) that may provide context but are not self-explanatory, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cognitive_record_experience or cognitive_start_experience, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional hint is that triggering it may induce candidate strategies, which hints at a side effect but does not clarify conditions for use, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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