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

Annotations establish only that this is a non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the submission is recorded as an actor claim and never as established fact, and it reveals the return payload ('the primary actor block'). This is substantive context for a mutation tool rather than a restatement of annotations.

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?

Three short clauses, with the admission prerequisite front-loaded before the action and its semantics. Efficient and front-loaded, though the bracketed prerequisite is slightly cryptic in phrasing.

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 3-required-param write with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the semantic nature of the write, and even the return block. The main omission is how this contrasts with sibling submission tools, which would complete the routing picture.

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 100%, so actor_token, matter_id, and content are already documented at the field level (including the 'optional when bound to exactly one matter' nuance). The description adds no parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline 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 verb+resource ('Submit a result') and then sharpens what that means: an actor claim rather than a decision. That semantic distinction separates it from decision-like siblings such as atlas.magistrate_execute, though the resource term 'result' is domain-specific and not fully self-explanatory.

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 bracketed prerequisite '[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]' explicitly names the setup tools an agent must call first, which is high-value ordering guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g. vs atlas.submit_evidence), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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