submit_functional_tests

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

The description explicitly states 'Mutating' and explains the underlying verification mechanism: 'an independent CI run against the named repo is what turns an operator's "verified" claim into verified state.' This adds meaningful context beyond the basic mutation hint, though it does not detail side effects such as whether existing assertions are overwritten or how the CI run is triggered. Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden well.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the word 'Mutating' immediately discloses the side effect, and the second paragraph provides necessary context without filler. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, analogy, mechanism, and usage sequence in a compact form.

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 tool's complexity (4 required params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage timing, relationship to siblings, and post-conditions. It could be more complete by addressing potential idempotency or failure behavior, but the output schema likely documents return values. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (75% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that assertions_json is a 'JSON array of assertion objects' with a specific structure and that functional_test_id indicates 'the test the assertions prove.' It does not discuss server_version or model_id, but these are likely standard context. Overall, the description supplements the schema meaningfully for the key 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Attach machine-verifiable evidence assertions to a functional test so CI can verify it.' This is a specific verb ('attach'), a specific resource ('functional test'), and a clear purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool submit_assertions by identifying as the 'functional-conformance analog,' making its unique role clear.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call it after the test is implemented (e.g. following get_functional_scan_prompt), then read the resulting state via get_functional_coverage or get_functional_test_sufficiency.' This gives a clear sequence and references alternatives/related tools, including when not to use it (for security controls, use submit_assertions).

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