request_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals an important behavior: at consent level 0, the tool always returns "await_human" and shows the filled form, requiring a human to click Submit. This goes beyond a generic description by explaining the human-in-the-loop nature and the conditional response, though it does not detail other consent levels or side effects.

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 short (one sentence) and front-loaded with "THE consent gate," but it uses unclear jargon like "await_human" and "consent level 0" without explanation. It is concise but sacrifices clarity, making it less helpful than it could be despite its brevity.

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 explains one conditional behavior (consent level 0) but omits essential context: what application_id is used for, what summary does, what the return value looks like, and what happens at other consent levels. Given the tool's role in a submission workflow and the absence of schema descriptions, the description is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain either parameter. It never mentions application_id (required integer) or summary (optional string), what they represent, or how they affect the request. The phrase "show the filled form" hints at displaying application data, but this is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the arguments.

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 action: "Ask permission to move to submission." It also identifies the tool as "THE consent gate," which distinguishes it from related tools like confirm_submitted and record_outcome. The verb and resource are explicit and unique within the sibling set.

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 in a submission workflow—"Ask permission to move to submission"—and provides a behavioral condition for consent level 0. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like confirm_submitted, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the consent level.

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