shortcut_submit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It usefully clarifies that it does NOT actually open the PR but returns the git/gh commands to do so, and that it validates and lints. However, it omits auth requirements, whether spec/metadata are mutated or just checked, and return details.

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 core action and followed by the verification note. Efficient, though the out-of-schema `verified_on` reference undermines clarity.

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 an 8-param, 6-required tool with a nested spec object, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is thin on parameter meaning. It also references a field (`verified_on`) absent from the schema, which will confuse an agent trying to satisfy required inputs.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions spec and metadata vaguely, and even references a `verified_on` field that is not in the schema, while leaving slug, name, author, category, tags, description, and description_ko unexplained.

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: packages a shortcut for a named library, validates/lints, and returns files plus git/gh commands. It distinguishes the workflow but does not differentiate from siblings like shortcut_publish or shortcut_lint, which overlap in scope.

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?

Only guidance is to encourage the user to run it on their iPhone first and fill `verified_on`, which is a helpful workflow note but not a when/when-not comparison. It never states when to choose this over shortcut_publish or shortcut_lint.

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