submit_note_for_review

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

The description supplements annotations by stating the tool does not write directly to LGL, clarifying its non-destructive but non-read-only nature. It adds context about queuing, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key constraint. No redundant information. Every part earns its place.

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 simple submission tool, description covers purpose, key constraint (no direct write), and required matching fields. Lacks details on post-submission behavior or status checking, but acceptable given no output schema.

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 67% (high), so baseline is 3. The description mentions first_name/last_name/email for matching but adds no further detail on other parameters like note_date or note_type. It does not significantly enhance schema information.

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 note to an integration queue for human review, not directly to LGL. It specifies the verb 'submit' and resource 'note to LGL's Integration Queue', distinguishing it from direct write tools like create_note.

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 when to use this tool (for review) and that it doesn't write directly, implying alternatives like create_note. It mentions required matching fields but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list sibling tool alternatives.

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