lounge_submit_answer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for surfacing behavioral traits. It does well by explaining the confidence wager mechanics, point gains/losses, and the difference between generated puzzles and duels. However, it omits other important details like whether submissions are final, potential errors, or rate limits.

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 three sentences, front-loading the crucial fact that it's FREE, then covering core submission semantics, then adding the optional confidence nuance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool is straightforward (submit answer) and the schema documents all parameters, but the description provides essential context about the two different answer outcomes (generated vs duel) and the wagering rules. It omits potential edge cases like idempotency, but for a single-attempt submission, this is likely 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the confidence parameter in detail: the betting range, example of +99/-564, and the safe option of omitting it. It also clarifies the puzzleId source. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 tool submits a single answer attempt, explicitly listing the types (free sample, purchased puzzle, or duel). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing lounge_play and lounge_attempt_duel as sources for puzzleId, which is unique to this tool.

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 explains when to use it (submit answer for a puzzle/duel) and mentions what happens after submission (answer/explanation for generated puzzles, withheld for duels). It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the sibling context is clear enough.

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