figure_library_prepare_submission

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: original data/scripts remain unchanged, no ZIP is generated, only a preparation record is written, and a review step precedes export. It omits why idempotentHint is false (repeat-call behavior), but adds solid context that annotations alone do not carry.

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 then the constraints, with no filler sentences. It is dense with domain jargon and the ordering of the last two clauses is slightly awkward, but every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, and the input is a complex nested object with three required parameters at 0% coverage. The description covers the operation's meaning and the surrounding review/export workflow but says little about the rich nested structure or what the record call returns, leaving an agent under-informed on the parameter side.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a deep nested translation object, the description must compensate. It clarifies locale semantics (both need English generated code; en additionally needs translated prose and plot labels) and hints at the 'verified' flag, but leaves files, notes, readmeSections, and fileDescriptions unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Record host-prepared language export copies') and states the operation's scope: it records preparation only, no ZIP is generated. It gestures at the workflow ('before applying export'), which partially differentiates it from the plan/apply submission-export siblings, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'after checking their code behavior and rerendered output' and 'User reviews the file inventory before applying export' convey ordering. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus figure_library_plan_submission_export or figure_library_apply_submission_export, leaving the routing to inference.

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