submit_form

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about the return format (empty OCS data, HTTP 201) and the share_hash mechanism, which helps an agent understand side effects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficient: a one-line purpose, a clean Args block with bullet points, and a Returns line. The most important info (purpose) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 submit operation with three parameters (one nested), the description covers all parameters with examples, explains the share_hash edge case, and specifies the return value. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing the output schema or additional context. It's fully adequate.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains each parameter: form_id as numeric, answers with a concrete example mapping question ids to answer arrays, and share_hash with its purpose and source. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 resource: 'Submit answers to a form on behalf of the current user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_submissions, update_submission, or create_form. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 for creating a form submission and clarifies the conditional use of share_hash for public link access. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_submission or list_submissions, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it. The share_hash condition is a specific usage guideline.

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