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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: a review step by the Carbon team before going live, and an email notification on publish. It does not, however, confirm the idempotency claim or describe what happens to the role while it is under review.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the review consequence, then the notification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-required-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the core behavior is covered. Gaps remain around the unexplained `confirm` flag and whether the action can be undone or what state the role enters during review.

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 0% and the description explains neither parameter. "one of your draft roles" loosely implies role_id identifies the draft, but the boolean `confirm` parameter is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving a real ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 (submits) and resource (a draft role) with a clear outcome (publishing). It is readily distinguishable from the sibling create_role_draft, since this tool acts on an existing draft rather than creating one.

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?

"Submits one of your draft roles" implies the precondition that a draft must already exist, which implicitly routes the agent away from create_role_draft. However, no alternatives are named explicitly and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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