misakanet_submit_usage

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 thoroughly: error cases (missing lesson_id), side effects (local placeholder only, remote disabled via MISAKANET_USAGE_DISABLE_REMOTE=1), auth (none), and rate limits (local stdio only). This is unusually complete disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the core action, then ordering, then semantics, then errors/side effects/auth/limits. Dense but each segment earns its place; the '[Experimental]' tag is useful signal. Slightly list-heavy but not padded.

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 unannotated mutation-style submit tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, parameters, errors, side effects, auth, and rate limits. The main gap is that it describes the output shape informally ('JSON with {lesson_id, tool, outcome, status}') without an actual output schema, but this still conveys what the agent receives.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the semantics (lesson_id required, tool is the calling client, outcome should be solved/partial/not-helpful) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Record that a public lesson helped with a problem.' The experimental bracket and the explicit timing ('Call this AFTER a lesson has been used and the outcome is known') distinguish it from siblings like misakanet_usage_status and misakanet_write_lesson.

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 (after outcome is known) and names the prerequisite check tool misakanet_usage_status before submitting. This is a clear ordering constraint that routes the agent correctly.

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