submit_action

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if a duplicate action is submitted. No contradictions with annotations exist because none are provided.

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 concise with two sentences plus a clean parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses a readable structure. Every sentence and bullet adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given no annotations and an output schema present but not described, the description covers parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context. It does not explain the response format, side effects, or verification process, leaving some gaps for a submission tool.

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 compensate. It lists parameters with brief contextual explanations (e.g., 'entity_id: your unique identifier (e.g. GitHub username)') and explicitly enumerates allowed action types, which the schema lacks. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 an action to ARGENTUM for verification. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like attest_action, which might serve a related purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attest_action or get_action_detail. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage heuristics.

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