Submit task output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioural value beyond them by disclosing the state transition (review_requested vs completed) and the fact that the output becomes the artefact under review. It does not address re-submission or overwrite behaviour for an already-completed task.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the branch behaviour. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With 6 params (3 required), a nested routing_hints object, 100% schema coverage, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing piece: what state the task ends in. It omits only the return payload and idempotency-on-retry details, which are minor given the rest of the coverage.

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% and the parameter docs are unusually thorough (confidence canonicalisation, routing_hints semantics, error -32602). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 specific verb+resource ('Submit a task's output') and immediately disambiguates the two execution paths, so an agent can tell it apart from chap.review.request, chap.task.update and chap.decide.* without reading any schema. The branch description makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context: tasks needing review are held as the artefact under review and move to review_requested, while all other tasks complete immediately. That tells the agent when this call is the right one. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not condition (e.g. 'do not call this to request a review directly').

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