agenta_verify_resubmit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for what is clearly a state-changing action. It does not say what state is created or altered, whether it notifies the reviewing party, whether it can be undone, or what happens on failure — 'send back for review' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the trigger condition is placed after the action, which is acceptable for a one-liner. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than polish.

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 zero-parameter but state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least state prerequisites and the effect of a successful resubmission. None of that is present, so an agent cannot verify it is taking the right action.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 verb phrase 'Send back for review' gestures at resubmitting a verification, and 'after making the changes we asked for' adds the resubmission nuance not present in the name. However it never says what object is being re-sent (a verification submission?) and does not differentiate itself from the sibling agenta_verify_submit, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'After making the changes we asked for' is an implied trigger condition and is the one thing the description does well. But it never names the alternative (agenta_verify_submit) or states when this should NOT be used, leaving the submit-vs-resubmit routing to inference.

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