Submit reports

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool requires explicit user confirmation and warning acknowledgement, which are not captured by the annotations (which only indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive). This helps the agent understand the interactive nature of the submission.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key requirements without extraneous information. Every phrase 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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose and prerequisites. However, it does not mention the return value or what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation message or ID). Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, this minor gap prevents a score of 5.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the purpose of each parameter: 'fresh validation token' for submissionToken, 'explicit confirmation' for confirm, and 'explicit warning acknowledgement' for acknowledgeWarnings. While the schema provides basic descriptions, the description clarifies the requirement of freshness and explicitness.

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 clearly states the action ('submit'), the resource ('validated CamCORS reports'), and the goal ('for approval/payment'). It further distinguishes from siblings by mentioning requirements like fresh validation token and explicit confirmation, which are not present in preparation or deletion sibling tools.

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 description explicitly lists prerequisites: a fresh validation token, explicit confirmation, and warning acknowledgement when warnings exist. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes the usage context clear.

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