workiva_submit_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it says nothing about state changes, side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The single phrase 'Submit a task' gives no insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 very brief and uses a clear 'Args' structure, wasting no words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, which prevents a higher score despite its efficient formatting.

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?

Although the output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description omits when to use the tool, what state change occurs, and how to obtain the task_id. The ambiguity of 'submit' makes the description insufficient for a correct 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?

The description adds 'The task UUID' for task_id, which goes beyond the schema's bare title 'Task Id' by specifying the expected format. While minimal, this is useful and compensates somewhat for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 task.' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'workiva_submit_task' with spaces, providing no additional meaning. It doesn't clarify what 'submit' indicates (e.g., submitting for approval, marking complete) or distinguish it from sibling tools like approve_task or create_task.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention related task tools, prerequisites, or workflow context, leaving the agent without any selection criteria among the many task-related siblings.

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