intigriti_create_submission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Submit') without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens after submission. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap. There is no indication that the submission will be visible to the program, that it cannot be undone, or that it requires authentication.

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, focused sentence: 'Submit a new bug report to a program. Include title, description, severity, proof of concept, and affected endpoint.' It is front-loaded with the main purpose and lists key parameters efficiently. 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?

The description is adequate for a simple create tool, but it lacks context about the response or post-submission behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent must rely on the description for what to expect. It does not mention that the submission will be created with an identifier, or that the program must be in scope. Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by listing the key fields to include ('title, description, severity, proof of concept, and affected endpoint'), which aligns with the required parameters. However, it omits mention of 'program_id' and 'vulnerability_type', and does not add any semantic nuance beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Submit a new bug report to a program.' It uses a specific verb ('submit'), specifies the resource ('bug report'), and targets a program. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like intigriti_list_submissions (which lists) and intigriti_get_submission (which retrieves).

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 the usage context: when you have a new bug report to submit. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when not to use it (e.g., for editing or commenting). However, the tool name and sibling names ('list', 'get', 'comment') provide sufficient context. The description is clear enough that an agent would know this is the creation tool.

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