submit_workshop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. 'Submit a workshop activity draft' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether this creates a new record or updates existing ones, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'submit' means operationally, what happens after submission, whether there's a review process, or what the expected response format might be. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more contextual information than provided.

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 91% (high), so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for the remaining 9% coverage gap or provide any high-level parameter context.

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 'Submit a workshop activity draft' clearly states the verb ('submit') and resource ('workshop activity draft'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling tools like 'submit_content_creation' or 'submit_public_speaking' - all appear to be submission tools for different activity types without clear distinction in the description alone.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the name suggests it's for workshop activities, there's no explicit comparison to 'submit_content_creation' or 'submit_public_speaking' that might also involve workshops. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternative tools.

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