Submit Strata Current control

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

The annotations already communicate the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true). The description adds value with the 'exact' trait, confirming the tool relays the exact transaction without modification. However, given destructiveHint=true, one would hope for some behavioral disclosure about what happens upon submission (e.g., replaces prior control), which is absent.

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?

A single 13-word sentence that leads with the verb and subject and packs meaningful qualifiers ('exact', 'externally maker-signed', 'stable retry key') into dense, valuable space. If anything, it's almost too terse given the complexity of what's being submitted.

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 are 75+ siblings with confusion pairs like strand_submit vs. current_submit, and no output schema to convey the response contract. For a destructive mutation, the description doesn't explain what 'Current' control means versus 'Strand,' whether submitting replaces something, or how one obtains a makerControlId — leaving an agent significantly under-equipped.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, and it does shed some light: 'exact externally maker-signed' clarifies signedTransactionBase64 semantics, and 'stable retry key' usefully frames idempotencyKey as a value that must be fixed across retries. However, the description offers no added meaning for marketId or makerControlId — an agent still wouldn't know what a makerControlId is or where to get one.

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 a specific verb (submit) and resource (externally maker-signed Current transaction), with the qualifier 'exact' adding meaningful distinctiveness — this tool does not re-sign or construct anything, it relays bytes. The phrase 'externally maker-signed' also differentiates this from prepare-style siblings, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 precondition for use — that an external maker has already produced a signed transaction — is clearly implied by 'externally maker-signed'. However, the description never states when NOT to use this (e.g., 'if you don't have a signed transaction, call current_prepare'), nor does it proactively name between strand_submit and current_submit.

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