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

The annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds valuable specifics: the submissions:write key scope required, the 409 conflict semantics, and that omitting expected_version makes the tool do an extra read before writing. It does not say what gets returned or whether notifications are sent.

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 conflict-handling guidance is front-loaded and useful, but the [When to use] block includes a long prompt-injection disclaimer that repeats the generic boilerplate about external data. That boilerplate dilutes the tool-specific signal without adding selection value.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema and no enums, the description covers the operational essentials: scoping, concurrency/conflict recovery, and user-consent gating. It is a little thin on what the successful result contains and whether a notification fires, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and this sets the baseline at 3. The description adds real meaning for expected_version (it is the version you read; omitting it changes behavior to read-then-send) and constrains status to list_submission_statuses keys.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Change a submission's state'. That states exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its close siblings add_submission_status and update_submission_status, so the agent must guess whether those siblings are the right choice.

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 states that status must be a key from list_submission_statuses, describes the conflict (409) recovery path through get_submission and confirmation with the user, and explicitly restricts calls to cases where the user asks for them. It describes both when and when not to use the tool, and names the companion tools.

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