submit_choice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them: it explains WHY no write occurs (submission to Campus disabled pending independent human approval) and pre-empts the trap of passing confirm:true. It stops short of describing validation failure behavior or what the preview returns, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the key constraint (no real submission, confirm:true cannot override) placed prominently up front. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only preview tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the surprising no-op semantics of confirm. A brief note on what the preview reports (valid/invalid, already-voted) would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so the schema already explains confirm, choice_id and option_id in the same terms. The description's mention that confirm:true does not enable the write is useful emphasis but repeats the schema's own confirm description rather than adding new semantics.

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 concrete verb pair (valida y previsualiza) and a concrete resource (una opción de mod_choice), so an agent knows this is a validation/preview operation rather than a real submission. It does not name the sibling get_choice as the read alternative, so sibling differentiation rests on inference. Clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

Usage is implied: it is for checking an option before any real submission, and the second sentence warns that confirm:true will not make the write happen. However, it never says when to prefer get_choice or how this relates to actually completing the choice, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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