submit_event_registration_for_review

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool submits to a review queue and does not write directly to LGL. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only) and openWorldHint=true, but don't capture the queuing behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the key action and outcome. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core behavior but lacks details on the review process, result handling, and interpretation of many optional fields. It is adequate for basic understanding but not comprehensive.

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 description adds value by specifying that first_name, last_name, and email are used for constituent matching, which is not fully conveyed by the schema descriptions alone. However, it does not explain the remaining 11 parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With 57% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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's purpose: 'Submit an event registration/invitation to LGL's Integration Queue for human review.' It uses a specific verb 'submit' and resource 'event registration/invitation', and distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not write directly to LGL, unlike other event mutation tools.

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 implies usage context ('for human review', 'does NOT write to LGL directly') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other review submissions or direct write tools like create_event_invitation. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer.

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