Submit Adaptations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses per-item accept/reject semantics, independent validation ('never all-or-nothing'), and an atomic locked write to changes.yaml. It doesn't cover error handling or post-conditions, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, item schema, and behavioral semantics. The field list is concise with '?' notation for optional fields, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 is complete enough for a batch wrapper: it defines the item shape, how acceptance works, and the atomic write behavior. The main gap is that the exact accept/reject signal mechanism (e.g., how default_disposition maps to acceptance) is deferred to the single-submission tools, and run_dir/now are not explained. Still, the core calling contract is clear.

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 by enumerating the per-item fields with optionality markers and pointing to single-submission tools for their semantics. It does not describe run_dir or now, but the essential item structure is fully specified.

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 several adaptations in one call') with a clear resource and scope. It explicitly contrasts with the 'single-submission tools' among the siblings, so an agent can distinguish batch submission from submit_adapted_prompt or submit_adapted_file.

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 phrasing 'several adaptations in one call' and the reference to 'the same rules as the single-submission tools' clearly imply when to use this batch tool versus the single-item alternatives. It doesn't spell out exclusions or exact selection criteria, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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