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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that ATAM injection scanning runs automatically, quarantined skills cannot be promoted, and the return values (submission ID, approval status, scan results). This covers key side effects and outputs, though it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action ('Submit a procedural workflow skill'), and every sentence adds value—covering audience, approval flow, scanning behavior, and return values. No wasted words.

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 tool with 11 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the purpose, the approval workflow differences, automatic security scanning, and what the caller receives. It doesn't explain every parameter, but the schema already covers those, and the description gives a solid high-level understanding.

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 all 11 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it does relate the 'target_visibility' concept to the Pro+/Starter auto-approval/review distinction.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('procedural workflow skill'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like promote_skill, dismiss_skill, and retract_skill. It also adds context about the discovery context and the approval flow.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when submitting a discovered procedural workflow skill. It also explains the differing behavior for Pro+ private skills (auto-approve) vs Starter skills (review queue), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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