Submit Strata execution

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is idempotent, is destructive, and acts on an open world. The description adds the nuance that the transaction must be externally signed, but it does not clarify side effects, finality, or error/retry behavior beyond what annotations and schema already communicate. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every part contributes meaning: submit, externally signed, prepared transaction, and idempotency key.

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 4-parameter submission tool, the combination of the description, rich schema, strong annotations, minimal overload, and the style of sibling tools is largely sufficient. A bit more detail about expected outcome or post-submission behavior would make it fully complete, but the essential workflow is clear.

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 100%, and each parameter, including executionId and signedTransactionBase64, already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action (submit), the resource (an externally signed prepared transaction), and a key constraint (idempotency key). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling submit tools such as strata_order_submit, so differentiation relies partly on the tool name/title rather than the description itself.

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 usage after a transaction has been prepared and externally signed, and it emphasizes the need for an idempotency key, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like strata_order_submit or strata_execution_prepare. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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