submit_contest_validation

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the Contests collection and targets existing contest documents, indicating a mutation. However, it does not explain whether prior validations are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or any prerequisite beyond 'existing' documents. The reference to submit_raw_validation gives a baseline but without that tool's description, behavioral details remain incomplete.

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 two short sentences: a clear purpose statement and a usage directive with sibling differentiation. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 only two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the sibling. The main gap is behavioral detail (e.g., overwrite semantics, idempotency), but for a submit operation this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'validation results from a chatbot' aligns with the validation_json parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The chatbot_id parameter is similarly self-explanatory, and the description does not elaborate on parameter format or restrictions.

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 tool submits validation results for contest documents, using the specific verb 'submit' and resource 'contest documents'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_raw_validation by noting it updates the Contests collection, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Same as submit_raw_validation but updates the Contests collection' and 'Use this for Stage 2 validation before LLM normalization', providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming an alternative tool. This meets the highest bar for usage differentiation.

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