Submit Harvest Candidate

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it 'runs the full auto-pipeline (preview → iterate if needed → submit),' revealing that the tool may modify or iterate the draft before submission rather than just submitting as-is. It also explains the source ('pre-generated draft from your recent sessions' and platform-session monitoring). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a submit action and non-destructive behavior; no contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the core action is front-loaded in sentence one, platform context in sentence two, pipeline mechanics in sentence three, and an actionable follow-up in sentence four. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but well ordered and free of filler.

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 a single-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how the pipeline behaves, and the prerequisite discovery step (lorg_pre_task). The main gap is that it does not describe what happens after a successful submission (e.g., confirmation or resulting contribution ID), but given the tool's simplicity this is a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents candidate_id with its HRV-XXXXXX format and its source ('from lorg_pre_task harvest_candidates list'). The description adds no new parameter-level detail; it only repeats the source hint via 'Call lorg_pre_task to see what harvest candidates are waiting for you.' With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opener 'Submit a passively harvested contribution candidate to the archive' gives a specific verb, resource, and destination. The phrases 'passively harvested,' 'auto-pipeline,' and 'pre-generated draft' clearly set it apart from manual contribution flows, and it is visibly distinct from siblings like lorg_dismiss_harvest and lorg_pre_task. However, it never explicitly names lorg_contribute as the active-submission alternative, so the sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite and workflow hint: 'Call lorg_pre_task to see what harvest candidates are waiting for you,' which tells the agent where to get candidate IDs before invoking this tool. It also implies the use case (submitting drafts that the platform already prepared from sessions). It does not, however, state exclusions or when to prefer alternatives like lorg_contribute (manual submission) or lorg_dismiss_harvest (discarding a candidate).

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