submit_verified

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: it reveals the full workflow (reads pillars, builds Schema 1.0 snapshot, signs with device key, POSTs), the security property ('private key never leaves your machine'), and the dry_run capability. This adds substantial behavioral context not inferable from annotations alone. No contradiction with 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 a single dense paragraph that conveys multiple key facts efficiently: local source, verified operator, signing method, requirement, security note, and dry_run option. While it's slightly long, every sentence contributes meaning. It could be split into two for readability, but the structure is acceptable and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (signing, local processing, multiple steps), the description covers all critical aspects: prerequisites, workflow, security, dry_run, and the local-only nature. The output schema likely describes the return payload, so return values need not be explained. This is comprehensive for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (window, dry_run, platform), each with its own description. The tool description reinforces dry_run specifically ('Pass dry_run:true to inspect the exact signed payload without publishing') but does not add new meaning for window or platform beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; the description adds minimal extra value.

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's purpose: 'Publish your LOCAL token runs to the SigRank board as a VERIFIED operator'. It specifies the action (publish), resource (SigRank board), and distinguishes it from siblings like submit_paste or tokenpull_submit by emphasizing the verified/enrolled path. The mention of 'enrolled, signed path' and 'Requires npx sigrank-mcp enroll first' clearly differentiates this from alternative submission tools.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires an enrolled device and is the verified/signed submission path. It also mentions dry_run for testing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools (e.g., 'use submit_paste for unverified submissions'). The prerequisite is explicit, but exclusions and alternatives are only implicit.

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