identity_submit_response

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

Annotations cover readOnly=false and openWorld=true; the description adds that it writes state upstream, that a pass returns a short-lived signed JWT, and that real wallets need a DIFFERENT fresh nonce than the one identity_get_challenge used. Missing: what a fail/inconclusive response looks like, retry semantics, or nonce-reuse failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then mode/credential requirements, then usage routing. The '[Wicked Identity]' prefix and the piped mode separators are slightly dense but every clause carries real information; nothing is filler.

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?

For a 6-param, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description supplies what's needed to call it correctly: required credentials per mode, the fresh-nonce constraint, and what a pass returns. It stops short of describing failure-path returns or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema can't express: the real-wallet vs sandbox mode split (nonce+signature vs sandbox_token) and the crucial constraint that the nonce must be fresh, not the get_challenge nonce. It doesn't restate challenge_id or response_text, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: submit an answer to a challenge, scored pass/fail/inconclusive. It also names what a pass yields (a short-lived signed assertion_token JWT verifiable via identity_jwks), which distinguishes it sharply from siblings like identity_get_challenge and identity_jwks.

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?

Explicit 'Use when you have the challenge answer and want it scored' plus an exclusion: 'Not for getting the challenge (use identity_get_challenge).' It also names the prerequisite steps (identity_get_nonce for real wallets, identity_sandbox_register for sandbox), so the agent knows the call sequence.

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