Submit Activity

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

Discloses critical behaviors beyond annotations: the ai object is required, confidence gating suppresses transitions and flags entries, and server-side guard rules may block. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint). References external resources for guardrails and input shapes.

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 front-loaded with purpose and workflow, followed by key rules and references. Every sentence adds value, but it is somewhat long and could be trimmed without losing essential information. However, for a complex tool, this level of detail is justified.

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?

Given 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (get_form), key input requirements (ai, confirmed), constraints (confidence threshold), and edge cases (guardrails). It references external documentation for full details, which is appropriate. Minor omission: no guidance on error handling or response format.

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 83% (good), and the description adds significant value by explaining the ai object requirement, confidence threshold effect, and compound field shapes (User, Module, etc.). It provides context that the schema alone does not, such as the workflow for get_form and guardrails.

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 'Perform an activity on a module entry' and lists standard activities (create, edit, delete, etc.) plus custom ones. It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_activities (plural, likely bulk) and get_form, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: call get_form before first submission per (module, activity) and reuse its schema. Warns about server-side guard rules and references inistate://guardrails. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling submit_activities for bulk operations, which would strengthen the guidance.

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