submit_constituent_for_review

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent false, open world. Description adds that submission goes to a queue for review, not direct write, which clarifies the behavior beyond annotations. 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. Could be slightly more structured, but effectively conveys purpose and key constraints without unnecessary words.

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 tool complexity (42 optional params, no output schema), description covers core behavior and field limits but lacks details on return value, error cases, or what happens after submission. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 low (29%), but description summarizes key fields (name, phones, emails, addresses, website, categories, relationship) and notes ordering (first item is primary). However, many parameters like groups, capacity, stewards are not explained, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 submits a constituent to LGL's Integration Queue for human review, specifying the verb 'submit' and resource. It lists included fields, distinguishing it from direct-write tools like create_constituent and other submit_*_for_review siblings.

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?

Explicitly states 'This does NOT write to LGL directly,' guiding when to use this tool vs create_constituent. Does not explicitly list alternatives but sufficiently sets context for review workflow.

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