submit_choice_response

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

The description adds the constraint that only options 'approved in the preview' are stored, which gives useful context about validation. However, it does not disclose the destructive nature (destructiveHint=true) explicitly, nor explain the confirmation_token requirement or potential overwriting of existing submissions. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description adds only a minimal extra behavioral detail.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the main verb. However, it is so minimal that it lacks structure or elaboration; it doesn't break down key constraints or provide context beyond the core idea. It is appropriately short but sacrifices informative value.

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 destructive, four-parameter tool with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot understand what confirmation_token is for, what the required fields mean, or what happens upon submission. The description provides only a fragment that leaves most operational details unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the four parameters (course_id, choice_id, option_texts, confirmation_token). The phrase 'exact Choice options' vaguely maps to option_texts but doesn't clarify its structure or the roles of the other parameters. Since the schema offers no descriptions, the description fails to compensate.

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 a specific action ('stores' / 'Guarda') and a resource ('exact Choice options'), giving a clear sense of what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from preview_submit_choice_response by mentioning 'approved in the preview', implying this is the actual submission step. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or define what 'Choice' refers to, so differentiation is indirect.

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 implies that the tool should be used only after a preview and only with exact options that were approved, providing some context for when to call it. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus preview_submit_choice_response or cancel_choice_response, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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