misakanet_submit_intake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the real side effect (files a GitHub issue on MisakaNet), the degraded offline path (local queue only, signalled by delivery=local_queue in the receipt), auth requirements (none), rate limits, and the two failure modes (missing problem, duplicate submission). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a mutating, externally-visible call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then usage, and the labelled segments (Input semantics, Output schema, Error cases, Side effects, Auth, Rate limits) make it scannable rather than rambling. It is dense and reads somewhat like a spec dump - enumerating every receipt field is borderline - but no sentence is genuinely idle given there is no output 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?

For an 8-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return contract (submitted, intake_id, status, redactions_applied, quality_score, dedup_key, poll_hint, receipt), the error cases, and the offline behaviour. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by stating that problem is required, that kind defaults to missing_lesson (a default the schema does not document), and by characterizing the rest as optional. It still does not explain the source parameter or the semantic interplay between kind values and matched_lesson_id beyond the schema's own text.

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 failure-case intake) plus the triggering condition (no matching lesson, or stale/incorrect lesson), which is far more precise than the tool name alone suggests. It also implicitly separates itself from the read-side siblings by referencing misakanet_search as the upstream step, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: after misakanet_search fails to find a good match, or when the user resolved an undocumented problem. It names the alternative (search) but does not state the inverse routing rule - e.g. that a good match plus feedback should go to misakanet_submit_usage rather than here, or when to prefer misakanet_write_lesson over kind=new_lesson_candidate.

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