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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, so a create operation is expected. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the submission is filed on the calling user's behalf, it returns the created submission, and the user can track it via the listed tools. No contradiction with the 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 tight sentences cover what the tool does, required inputs and the attachment source, and what happens with the result. The most important information is front-loaded before optional detail.

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 4-parameter creation tool with a full schema, required and optional fields are clear, the attachment dependency is stated, and related tracking tools are named. The only omitted items, such as auth or rate limits, are not expected for this kind of straightforward submission 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter details. The description still adds value by naming the required parameters in order and clarifying that attachments must be IDs from upload_submission_screenshot, a relationship not fully expressed in the schema.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'File a bug report or a feature request with Embers...' and explicitly distinguishes the two type values. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and sets it apart from tracking tools like get_submission and list_my_submissions.

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 for when to use it: to file a bug or request on the user's behalf. It also points to upload_submission_screenshot for attachments and to get_submission/list_my_submissions for tracking, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention reply_to_submission as the follow-up alternative.

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