submit_public_speaking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Submit') but doesn't clarify permissions, whether this creates or updates records, error handling, or what happens upon submission. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core function.

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 complex mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively despite the detailed input schema.

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 high at 91%, so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'draft' submission, which doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Submit') and resource ('public speaking activity draft'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this as a submission tool for public speaking activities, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_workshop' or 'submit_story' beyond the activity type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'submit_workshop' or 'submit_story' to help the agent choose correctly among submission options.

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