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

Annotations only convey the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open-world). The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: send the full article rather than a diff, the resubmission re-enters review, a one-revision limit, rejection on a second failure, and the API-key requirement.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope, the full-article requirement, the review cycle, and the one-revision/auth constraints. The purpose and scope are front-loaded before the workflow caveats.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: eligibility, the correct payload form, the review consequence, the revision limit, and auth. No critical decision information is missing.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries some burden; it usefully clarifies that the article argument must be the full corrected body, not a diff, and implies submission_id via 'one of your submissions'. It does not add further meaning beyond the nested schema descriptions that already document the article structure.

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 (resubmit/revise) and resource (a submission), and pins the scope precisely to submissions 'whose status is needs_revision'. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling submit_article (new content) and get_submission (read).

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?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition (status is needs_revision) and routes the agent to the sibling get_submission to obtain editor_notes that must be addressed. It also states the hard constraint that only one revision is allowed before rejection.

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