copalibre_module_submit

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the side effects (fork, branch creation, push, PR open), the hard limit (never merges), the auth model (no API token required), and the external prerequisite (`gh` authenticated with fork permission). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking an irreversible remote action.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the usage condition, then the auth requirements. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so nothing is owed on return values, and the description fully covers behavior, sequencing, and auth. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented parameters, which is the sole reason this is not 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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters (path, base_branch, upstream_repository), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at the concepts — local module package, new branch, target repository — but never maps them to parameter names, formats, or defaults, leaving all three effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific multi-step verb chain (forks, copies, pushes, opens a pull request) on a named resource (copalibre-modules), and explicitly frames its position in the workflow relative to copalibre_module_scaffold and copalibre_module_validate_local. An agent can distinguish this from the other module_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('once a scaffolded module has been edited and passes copalibre_module_validate_local') and an explicit boundary ('this is the last step, handing the module to a human reviewer; it never merges anything itself'). The when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated rather than inferred.

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