Submit a contribution

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

Annotations only declare that this is an externally visible, non-destructive write; the description adds the substantive behavior: with GitHub connected it opens an issue from the person's own account and returns the review desk's answer, otherwise it returns a pre-filled issue link for the person to open and submit themselves. That is real side-effect disclosure beyond what the annotations carry.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the consent gate, then the two execution branches. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers both return paths (review desk's answer vs. pre-filled issue link), so an agent knows what to expect in either mode. For a single-parameter submission tool, nothing material is missing.

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 single parameter is already documented as the draft_id returned by prepare_contribution. The description reinforces that it must come from this conversation, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (submit a contribution) plus the exact handle it consumes (draft_id from prepare_contribution in this conversation). This clearly separates it from sibling prepare_contribution (which creates the draft), revise_contribution and withdraw_contribution.

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 an explicit, checkable precondition: call only after showing the person the preview and obtaining explicit agreement. That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not name the alternatives when the person wants changes instead (revise_contribution) or changes their mind (withdraw_contribution).

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