submit_functional_test_assertions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly labels the tool as 'Mutating,' explains the side effect (CI verifies the claim), and describes the data flow (submits evidence for an existing test). It does not mention failure modes or idempotency, but the provided information is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior, making it a 4.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by well-organized clarifications and alternatives. It is longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes value, including the comparison to submit_assertions and the pointers to related tools. It could be tightened, but it is not bloated.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (mutating, requires existing test, involves CI), the description provides a complete picture: what it does, what it doesn't do, when to call it, and what to use instead. It also references related tools (get_scan_prompt, get_functional_coverage) for follow-up. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Missing error handling details prevent a 5.

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 75%, so the baseline is near 3. The description does not directly elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does add high-level context (e.g., 'binds assertions such as "the test exists" and "the test passes"') that helps understand the content of assertions_json. Since it does not compensate for the undocumented server_version parameter, a score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attach machine-verifiable evidence assertions to one already-existing functional test so CI can verify it.' It uses a specific verb (attach) and resource (functional test), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_assertions, import_functional_tests, and add_functional_test by explaining the differences in scope and behavior.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call this after the test is implemented') and when not to ('it does not create or register the test'), and provides direct alternatives: 'To bulk-register test DEFINITIONS from your codebase instead, use import_functional_tests; to hand-author a single test use add_functional_test.' Also clearly differentiates from submit_assertions by domain. This is exactly what the guideline dimension looks for.

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