submit_mee_intent

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, implying a potentially mutating/destructive submission. The description instead declares 'preparation_only' and says the tool currently returns typed feature_not_ready, which does not execute a mutation. This is a material mismatch between the stated behavior and the annotations.

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 short and front-loads the key behavioral fact that the tool is currently a non-functional capability probe. The bracketed metadata is somewhat dense but the core message is delivered efficiently.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and conflicting annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the current feature_not_ready state but omits parameter meaning, preconditions, and what an agent should do instead.

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 the three required parameters: id, nonce, and signature. The schema provides only types and a signature pattern, so the description does not compensate for the missing semantic guidance.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Capability probe for MEE submission' and states that it currently returns feature_not_ready. However, 'MEE' is unexplained and the purpose is somewhat indirect, since the name submit_mee_intent suggests actual submission while the description says preparation/probing.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as create_mee_intent, simulate_mee_intent, or get_mee_intent_status. It implies the tool is not yet usable because it returns feature_not_ready, but does not say what to do instead.

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