Close And Distribute A Submittal Log

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (PATCH semantics) and that it returns the modified object on success. However, it does not disclose details about the distribution process, side effects like notifications, or any required permissions beyond what is implied.

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 at four sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. It includes useful API endpoint information without excessive detail. Minor redundancy in repeating required parameters could be removed for brevity, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

The description adequately covers the basic operation (close and distribute, partial update, return value) and required parameters. However, it lacks details on the distribution behavior, expected response format, error conditions, or prerequisite states (e.g., submittal must be in a certain status). For a multi-step operation, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds no new meaning. It repeats required parameters (project_id, id) but does not explain how to use optional fields like submittal_log_status_id, message, or recipient_ids in the context of closing and distributing.

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 'Close and Distribute the specified Submittal Log' as the primary action, using a specific verb and resource. It also notes that it updates existing submittals with only supplied fields changed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update_submittal' or 'create_submittal', and the overlap in wording ('update an existing Submittals') could cause slight confusion.

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 omits any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists required parameters, it does not explain the context or prerequisites for closing and distributing a submittal log, nor does it mention scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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