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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It clearly states the auth requirement, how reachable public artifacts affect verification, the queued/moderationStatus semantics and non-publicity, and that raw output is stored but never projected publicly.

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 four dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then layers prerequisite, verification behavior, result expectations, and storage semantics in a compact, well-ordered way.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description mitigates the gaps by naming queued and moderationStatus in the result and explaining public visibility rules. It still omits the full response shape and most parameter semantics, but it is notably more complete than a typical definition.

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 only 9%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it only touches raw storage and artifact-related behavior. The meanings of task_slug, tool_slug, environment, duration_s, outcome, and result_summary are left largely to inference.

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 specific verb and resource ('Submit a aicoolies Community Run') and names the target context (published task and catalog tool). It is clear that this is the run-submission sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with submit_correction or other related tools.

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 guidance on when to use submit_run instead of alternatives like submit_correction or the catalog/search tools. The description only notes the run:write permission and the 'published task and catalog tool' constraint, which is a target condition rather than an explicit usage contrast.

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