bsp_submit_biorecord

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the consent requirement but does not state whether this creates or replaces a record, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what happens after submission. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler. The core operation is stated first and the consent precondition is appended cleanly in a parenthetical; every part earns its place.

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 six required parameters are fully documented in the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema the description still omits important behavioral context such as idempotency, response shape, and whether the BEO must be in a particular state. It is adequate for routing the call but not fully complete for a write operation.

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 already describes all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the required consent is SUBMIT_RECORD, which clarifies token_id beyond its generic schema text. It does not add semantic detail for the other parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Submit' plus the resource 'BioRecord for a BEO', clearly identifying the operation. This also distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like bsp_get_biorecords and destructive tools like bsp_destroy_beo.

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 consent prerequisite ('requires SUBMIT_RECORD consent') gives useful context for when the tool can be invoked, but no alternative tool is named and there is no when-not-to-use guidance. The usage is mostly implied by the verb 'Submit' rather than made explicit.

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