submit_answers

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool can change project state (advance to SPEC) and explains the return behavior. However, it omits details such as whether answers are validated, how the order of answers maps to questions, and whether the action is idempotent.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key outcome. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and every clause contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core workflow adequately. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the agent is left without details on how the returned 'more questions' are structured or how answers should be formatted, which could require additional inference during invocation.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning to 'answers' by clarifying they are the user's responses to current discovery questions, but it does not explain formatting, ordering, or required count. 'project_id' is left completely to the schema, relying on the parameter name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and a clear resource ('the user's answers to the current discovery questions'), and further clarifies the two possible outcomes: more questions or advancing to the SPEC phase. This distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools, which concern planning, approval, and project lifecycle actions.

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 clearly situates the tool in the discovery question flow: after questions are presented, this tool submits the user's answers. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives, but the intended context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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