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

Annotations already cover safety, idempotency, and closed-world scope, so the description's added value is the attestation semantics: this records a self-report rather than verified acceptance or listing. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. What is missing is what a false 'submitted' value does (unmarking/reverting a task).

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with essentially no filler; the important disambiguation comes first. It is arguably too terse given three undocumented required parameters, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations and there is no output schema to explain, so the remaining burden is parameter meaning and precondition behavior, which the description leaves unaddressed. Adequate framing for a write tool, but not complete for a 3-required-parameter mutation.

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 all three parameters (server_id, slug, submitted) are required, yet the description mentions none of them and does not explain the boolean's direction or the enumerated directory list. The agent must infer entirely from the schema.

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 action ('Records') on a specific thing (that the owner says they submitted the directory form themselves), and clarifies the semantic nature of the record. It never names the tool's resource precisely (a form task for a given server/slug), but the core effect is unambiguous.

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 clause 'Not proof of acceptance or listing' functions as an implicit exclusion: use this for attestation, not for verifying outcomes. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_form_tasks or answer_launch_questions, nor describes the preconditions (e.g., that a form task must already exist).

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