submit_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Record draft text', which implies a write operation, but fails to disclose whether it appends or overwrites, required permissions, or effects on existing data. Minimal transparency for a potentially destructive action.

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?

A single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with verb and object, no fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks workflow guidance (e.g., that run_id comes from build_context) and does not clarify the tool's role among siblings. Adequate but could be more informative.

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 description coverage is 67% (path and run_id have descriptions; text does not). The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, such as text format or constraints. Adequate but no extra value.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Record') and the object ('draft text produced by an external AI tool in an existing run'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_draft' (which creates a draft) and 'review_run' (which reviews), as it specifically handles external draft submission.

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 when a draft is produced externally and needs to be recorded in an existing run, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_draft' for internal drafting, nor does it provide when-not-to scenarios.

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