Submit interview answers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return behavior (next question batch vs. completion announcement), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about mutation effects, whether submission is idempotent, what happens to unsupplied questions, or how errors on bad question ids surface.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the mode list, with the constraint rule last. No filler, though the three-mode clause is dense enough that the user/inferred distinction has to be re-read against the final sentence.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and one key constraint. It is still missing failure behavior (unknown question id), partial-submission semantics, and how the four answer-transport parameters interact, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents source, answers.id/value, useDefaultsFor, confirmInferred and acceptAllDefaults. The description restates the 'inferred' meaning and gestures at defaults, but leaves the risky ambiguity unresolved: when to use answers vs useDefaultsFor vs acceptAllDefaults vs confirmInferred, and whether these can be combined in a single call.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ("record the user's answers", "pre-fill inferred answers", "accept defaults") and states what comes back ("next batch of questions... or the interview is complete"). It is clearly distinguishable from a read/query sibling, but it never names a sibling such as archforge_ask or archforge_submit_sections to route between them.

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?

It gives an explicit behavioral rule for when to use which mode: "Only submit values the user actually gave; use source 'inferred' for values you deduced from their idea." That is real usage guidance, but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of when to call archforge_ask instead, and no prerequisites (e.g. must a project exist first?).

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