diana_community_contribute

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

The annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with them while adding real context: this is a public external write, the uploaded entries stay low-trust candidates, repository automation validates them, and the returned compare URL is how a pull request gets opened. It doesn't cover idempotency or whether re-uploading the same batch is safe, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the safety gate, then the downstream consequence. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or the schema, and every sentence carries new information.

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 two-parameter external write tool, the definition covers purpose, precondition, trust level of the data, and post-call behavior (compare URL leads to a PR). An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, and the one relevant return detail is mentioned anyway.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the burden. It does so for the critical parameter by specifying the exact 'UPLOAD <batch_id>' confirmation format, and it implies batch_id refers to a batch produced and reviewed via diana_community_preview. It could have said more about batch_id's provenance or format, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (upload), a specific resource (a reviewed redaction batch), and a specific destination (a public contribution branch). This clearly separates it from diana_community_preview, which only stages the batch, and from the read-only community 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?

The description names the prerequisite (the user must first review diana_community_preview) and gives an exact gating condition: it runs only when confirmation equals 'UPLOAD <batch_id>'. An agent therefore knows both when it may call the tool and which sibling must run first.

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