submit_pr

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the API key requirement but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether submissions are final), error states, or authentication details beyond the key.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds a specific guideline and requirement. No redundant information.

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?

No output schema, moderate complexity (5 params). Description lacks details on return values, confirmation, or post-submission behavior. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 60%, with task_id and agent_id undocumented. The description adds meaning for external_link (upstream PR URL for code tasks) but does not enhance other parameters. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 'Submit a solution to a bounty', identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'award_bounty' and 'check_submission_status' by focusing on submission.

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 context for code tasks (external_link as PR URL) and notes the API key requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_submission_status' or 'create_bounty_draft'.

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