Submit written sections (host authoring)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses server-side heading cleanup, Mermaid and required-content validation, partial storage semantics, and problem reporting. Gaps remain on permissions/auth requirements, whether resubmission overwrites existing sections, and the shape of the returned problems, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its source, followed by the server-side behavior. Every clause carries information about validation or storage outcomes; nothing is redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavior: validation, partial acceptance, and problem reporting as the return channel. It could go further on auth/idempotency and on how the force flag interacts with the validation story described, but nothing essential is missing for a correct first call.

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 only 33%, and the description never mentions projectId or the important force flag, leaving the agent to rely on the schema alone for those. It does add meaning for sections' content by implying the body is markdown that will be heading-cleaned and Mermaid-validated, which is genuine added value, but the coverage gap is only partly compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit design sections') and ties the input to a named sibling, archforge_generate_design briefs, which separates it from archforge_submit_answers. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it is not, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Clear upstream context: use this after obtaining briefs from archforge_generate_design. It also explains the partial-acceptance outcome (accepted sections stored, problems returned for the rest), which tells the agent how to react to a mixed result. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of the force escape hatch, so not a 5.

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