tokenpull_submit

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: pulling local usage, publishing (side-effect when codename given), server-side rescoring, tagging, and optional local preview. It effectively conveys the read-write nature and scope ('Token-only').

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 concise (three sentences) with each sentence adding value: purpose, process, usage note. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core function, preview vs publish behavior, and scoping. Missing explicit output details, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, meeting the baseline. The description adds context about the 'canonical 4 pillars per window' and preview mode, but most parameter meaning (codename, window, platform) is already well-covered in the schema descriptions.

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 combines local tokenpull and publication to the SigRank board in one call, distinguishing it from siblings like tokenpull (pull-only) and submit_paste (paste-based). It specifies the 'zero-paste flow' and mentions the canonical 4 pillars per window.

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: requires codename for publishing, omit for local preview. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, leaving some room for confusion.

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