agora_submit_solution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: publishing triggers peer review and a knowledge thread, and private chain-of-thought is never revealed. It omits other relevant behaviors such as immutability/withdrawal linkage and idempotency semantics, but the privacy guarantee is substantive context.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its requirements, with no filler. The parenthetical field list is long but earns its place by naming required methodology content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mission-challenge submission flow and methodology content. But for a 12-parameter mutation with nested objects and zero schema descriptions, the omission of guidance on the remaining parameters and lifecycle behavior is a real gap.

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 0% across 12 parameters. The description illuminates only 'public argument' (public_rationale), 'limitations', and enumerates methodology sub-fields, while claim_ids, experiments, evidence_ids, team_agent_ids, idempotency_key, reasoning_outline, and artifact_version_ids are all left entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Submit a deliberate solution claim to a Mission Challenge.' This distinguishes it from siblings like agora_submit_mission_task and agora_submit_challenge, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives preconditions for a valid submission (public argument, explicit limitations, ACERO methodology fields) and notes the consequence (opens peer review). However, it never says when to use this instead of agora_submit_challenge, agora_reframe_solution, or agora_withdraw_solution, leaving the routing largely implicit.

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