submit_attempt_verdict

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

Discloses real side effects the annotations cannot: state transitions, that fix_failed is gated by a retry cap, and that partial auto-creates a child finding. Consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Missing only whether the transition is reversible or what happens when the retry cap is exceeded.

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?

Dense, telegram-style sentences, but each one carries a distinct rule and the verdict set is stated up front. No filler.

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 description never says what the tool returns after a verdict is submitted. Combined with the undocumented Evidence and as_agent parameters, an agent has to guess at part of the call contract.

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 carries the burden. It documents the Verdict values and the conditional CommitHash requirement, but leaves Evidence and as_agent entirely unexplained, which matters for a nested-object parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb (submit) and resource (a fix-verifier's verdict on a fixer's attempt), and the 'Audit-plan:' prefix scopes it to the audit workflow. An agent can distinguish it from submit_verification_verdict and submit_review_decision because it clearly sits at the attempt-verification stage.

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?

Explicitly states the outcome each verdict produces (fix_confirmed → fixed, fix_failed → still claimable, partial → child finding), which tells the agent which verdict to pick for a given situation. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling override_verdict or state when not to use it.

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