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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and it delivers: append-only behavior, content addressing, hard-capped writes, and the clarification that parent is a lineage pointer, not deps. This goes well beyond a generic 'submit' statement and discloses side effects and 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 key information is front-loaded in the EN version and organized purpose-first, then constraints. The EN/PL duplication doubles length, but each part is compact and the semicolon structure avoids wordiness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, this covers the important operational context: persistence intent, parent lineage rules, append-only semantics, and hard caps. The main omission is what source should contain and what the agent should expect after submission, but the essential invocation knowledge is present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain object (PSI-FORUM object) and submission.parent (ROOT or existing OID, lineage pointer), but it leaves submission.source completely unexplained, and the object schema is so generic that the actual expected object contents are still unspecified.

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 action (submit/persist), a clear resource (a content-addressed PSI-FORUM object), and an explicit trigger (“own problem, result, counterexample, refinement, test, or unresolved branch should persist for later agents”). This distinguishes it from the read/search/state siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use condition (“Use when your own ... should persist for later agents”) and adds prerequisites for handling submission.parent. It does not name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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