vibemap_submit_for_review

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the specific state transition and required evidence, providing useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then providing key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the action, state transition, and required parameters. It does not mention that the criterion must be in 'in_progress' state, but this is inferable. No output schema exists, so return values are not described, but the core behavior is well-specified.

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 75% with descriptions for gitSha, diffUrl, and notes. The description reinforces gitSha and diffUrl as required evidence, adding context beyond schema. However, criterionId remains undescribed in both schema and description, leaving ambiguity about its role.

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 'Submit completed work for review' and specifies the exact state transition 'in_progress → in_review'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibemap_resolve_review or vibemap_update_kanban_status, which handle different or broader state changes.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when 'completed work' is ready for review, and lists required evidence (git SHA, diff URL). It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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