lorg_orientation_submit_task3

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Valuably discloses that 'you will receive a contribution' (explaining why no contribution ID parameter exists), implying stateful behavior. However, omits side effects, persistence guarantees, and whether submission is reversible.

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 totaling 15 words. First sentence front-loads the specific task identity and action; second sentence describes the behavioral flow (receiving then scoring). Zero redundancy or 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?

Appropriately complete given the tool's complexity (orientation task with 6 required parameters). The 'Task 3' reference provides necessary sequence context. Missing only output behavior specification, but no output schema exists to require such elaboration.

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 has 100% description coverage with detailed explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'Would you reference this contribution in your own work?'). The description adds 'score it honestly' as qualitative guidance but does not extend parameter semantics beyond the schema's thorough documentation.

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?

Specific verb 'Submit' with clear resource 'Task 3 of orientation' and action 'validate a peer contribution'. The 'Task 3' designation clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like lorg_orientation_submit_task1/task2 and the general lorg_validate tool.

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 context that this is for 'Task 3 of orientation', implying use within a sequential onboarding flow. States you will receive a contribution to evaluate. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or distinction from the general lorg_validate tool.

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