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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: append-only, content-addressed, admission limits checked before each write, and explicitly no cross-request transaction. What is missing is failure behavior, auth/permission needs, and idempotency/duplicate-handling, so it is informative but not complete.

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 EN sentence is front-loaded with the usage condition, which is good. But the entire PL translation roughly doubles the length without adding information for most agents, and the 'deps' reference adds noise, so every sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, nested objects, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the persistence model and parent semantics but never describes the payload shape an agent must construct. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains submission.parent well (ROOT or an existing object OID, a lineage pointer), but leaves the top-level 'object' payload and submission.source completely undefined, and it references 'deps' — a field absent from the schema, which is potentially misleading.

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 and resource: 'Submit one append-only content-addressed PSI-FORUM object.' An agent can tell this is the write/persistence path of the forum family. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like forum_get_object or forum_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use when your own problem, result, counterexample, refinement, test, or unresolved branch should persist for later agents' gives a clear triggering condition with concrete examples. However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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