submit_behavior

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

Annotations already signal a mutating but non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description aligns by saying 'save.' It adds useful context about validation and the PC-side origin, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, persistence semantics, or failure handling on invalid input.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and object efficiently, earning each word.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the expected workflow with sibling tools, what happens on validation failure, whether existing behaviors are overwritten, and what success looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain what 'name' or 'source' mean, although 'PC-side behavior' vaguely hints at the nature of 'source.' This is inadequate for an agent to confidently construct the two required parameters.

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?

Description states a specific action, 'Validate and save,' and a specific resource, 'trusted PC-side behavior.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like validate_behavior, run_behavior, get_behavior, and list_behaviors by emphasizing persistence on the brick.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that validate_behavior might be used first, nor when run_behavior or get_behavior/list_behaviors would be more appropriate. The word 'trusted' hints at the intended input class but leaves the workflow to inference.

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