submit_prepare

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that a leftover submission window may be closed (closed_previous count, WINDOW_NOT_CLOSED failure), that the window stays open on mid-flow errors, that page prompts are surfaced verbatim, that page detection takes about a minute, and that publishing only occurs after a user click. Unfilled page settings are preserved and reported in other_sections, so the agent knows the tool does not silently overwrite the form.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every sentence conveys operational detail (check order, page-by-page fill, error behavior). It is nonetheless a single dense block of roughly 400 characters, and the return-value enumeration at the end could be split or tightened for scannability.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (page summary, per-check results, agreement state, submit-button clickability, next step, other_sections, issues) plus failure semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely appears to be absent.

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 100%, so the schema already explains name length rules, camera enum, task_track requirements, and the instance_id/project_path mutual exclusion. The description adds only ordering context — e.g. icon_image is applied before the window opens — rather than new meaning about the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+end-state: fill the submission window and stop before the user clicks 「提交审核」. It explicitly delineates what the tool will NOT do (no agreement checkbox, no submit click) and contrasts its own entry path with the toolbar 「提交特效」 button, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools like effect_check or my_effect_reviews.

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?

It specifies the precondition sequence (local checks must pass first, otherwise no window opens and issues are returned) and names concrete error exits (SUBMIT_*, SUBMIT_TASK_NEEDS_TRACK). It also implicitly routes icon work to icon_image and mentions the task/inspiration binding tools. What is missing is an explicit statement of when a caller should use this versus doing a manual staged submission through icon_set / task_bind / inspiration_bind separately.

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