submit_attestation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: it records an affirmation, mitigates linked COs while valid, and makes them at-risk upon expiry. It also states constraints (only for external assumptions). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by constraints and implications. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains purpose, usage constraints, and impact on COs. It could mention the response format, but output schema exists. It is adequate for an agent.

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 86%, which is high. The description does not add detail about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The constraint about external assumptions is not parameter-specific. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Record that a responsible party affirmed an assumption holds,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_assumption' and 'list_attestations' by clarifying it records an attestation, not creating an assumption or listing them.

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 explicitly states it is 'Only for external assumptions' and that 'Non-applicability assumptions require CI verification' with specific steps, and that manual attestation is rejected for them. It also explains the consequence of expiration, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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