submit_verified

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

The description transparently details the tool's behavior: reads pillars, builds snapshot, signs with device key, and POSTs. It discloses that the private key never leaves the machine, and explains the dry_run option. Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent, with no contradictions.

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 coherent paragraph that front-loads the main action and then details steps, prerequisites, and options. It contains no redundant sentences, though it could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 3 parameters, output schema availability, and annotations, the description covers all necessary behavioral info: what it does, prerequisites, security model, parameter defaults, and the dry_run flow. No gaps are evident.

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% coverage for its 3 parameters already. The description adds value by specifying defaults (window=all 4, platform='claude') and explaining special behavior for platform 'multi' (summed cascade requiring 2+ active platforms). This goes beyond the schema's enumerated values.

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 publishes local token runs to SigRank as a verified operator, with specific steps: read pillars, build canonical schema, sign with device key, POST to /api/v1/snapshots. It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_paste by emphasizing the 'verified' and 'signed' path, which targets board ranking.

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 explicit prerequisite: requires `npx sigrank-mcp enroll` first. It explains the dry_run parameter for safe inspection. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, it gives sufficient context for appropriate use.

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