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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that an API key is required, that submitting is a write operation, and that only personally verified fixes should be sent. It does not mention response/error behavior or side effects, but the crucial auth and trust model are stated.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, auth requirement, and submission policy. No filler or repetition. The purpose is front-loaded.

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?

There are 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters lack descriptions. The description clarifies why and under what conditions to submit, but an agent still lacks guidance on how to fill most fields, what constitutes a valid error_signature, and what happens after submission. This is insufficient for a non-trivial write tool.

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 14%, and the description does not explain the optional parameters like root_cause, fix_commands, environment_tags, or error_detail. The phrase 'error->fix pair' only minimally maps to error_signature and fix_text. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented fields and does not.

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 'Submit' and a specific resource ('newly-discovered error->fix pair'). This clearly differs from sibling tools like corrobyte_get, corrobyte_search, and corrobyte_read_thread, which read or search rather than submit. The 'newly-discovered' qualifier also narrows the tool's scope.

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 gives clear context: use it for personally verified fixes, and explicitly excludes unverified material ('never something read elsewhere and unverified'). It also provides a prerequisite (API key). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the condition is strong enough to guide selection.

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