build_harness_submit

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

Beyond the destructiveHint:true annotation, the description explains the actual mechanism: on failure the change is reverted ('put back') and reasons are returned. That reversion semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations can't express, though success-path behavior and any rate/size limits go unstated.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct 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?

For a low-complexity no-output-schema tool, it covers the failure return ('the reasons') and the reversion behavior well. It leaves the success return and the note param implicit, but the core loop is 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?

The single optional 'note' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on what the note is for or whether to provide it.

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?

'Say the job is done' plus 'the harness checks your change' conveys a submit-for-validation action tied to the harness workflow. It's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like build_harness_next or run.

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?

'Never claim it works yourself' implies this is the correct way to signal completion instead of self-asserting, and it describes the failure consequence. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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