submit_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only states the state transition ('Move a draft budget to Submitted') without disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error conditions. For instance, it does not mention what happens if the budget is not in draft state or whether the action can be undone. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single, concise sentence: 'Move a draft budget to Submitted (action_submit).' It contains no filler and front-loads the core action clearly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description still leaves gaps. It does not explain the budget lifecycle context, such as prerequisites (draft status), consequences of submission, or how it differs from approval/activation. The lack of any behavioral or workflow context makes it incomplete for an agent that needs to decide and invoke this tool reliably.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'budget_id'. The description does not explicitly mention the parameter, though 'a draft budget' implies the identifier. However, it does not explain any constraints, such as the budget needing to be in draft status, or the format of the ID. Since the parameter is self-evident, it gets a small credit, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Move a draft budget to Submitted (action_submit)'. It uses a specific verb ('Move'), identifies the resource ('draft budget'), and specifies the target state ('Submitted'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'approve_budget' and 'activate_budget'.

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 implies usage: it should be used when a budget is in draft state and needs to be submitted. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives such as 'approve_budget' or 'activate_budget'. The context of sibling tools suggests a workflow, but this is not articulated in the description.

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