submit_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns 'This is a mutation — use intentionally and confirm with the user before calling,' which discloses the destructive/mutating nature and suggests a safety practice. It doesn't mention reversibility or side effects, but the warning is valuable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential caveats without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the key elements: purpose, preconditions, and a behavioral warning. It doesn't cover all possible edge cases (e.g., what happens on failure), but for a simple mutation tool it is sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter change_id with a detailed description (numeric, 'project~branch~changeId', or full Change-Id). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a Gerrit change for merging.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like abandon_change and restore_change.

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 gives explicit preconditions: 'must be ready to submit (all required labels approved, no merge conflicts).' It also advises confirming with the user before calling. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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