build_harness_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the harness verifies the change, reverts it on failure, and returns the reasons. It stops short of covering permissions, what exactly 'put back' restores, or whether submission is final.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the consequence and the constraint. No filler, though the informal 'Say the job is done' phrasing is slightly looser than a precise imperative.

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 one-parameter submit tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and failure semantics, but leaves the only parameter entirely unexplained and omits any prerequisite or auth context.

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 'note' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on its purpose, format, or whether it is required. The description does not compensate for the gap.

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 conveys a specific action — submitting a completed change to the harness for verification — and clarifies the consequence (harness checks it, rolls back on failure). It is understandable without opening the schema, though it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like build_harness_status or build_harness_next.

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?

Timing is implied ('Say the job is done') and the closing line 'Never claim it works yourself' hints that this tool replaces self-asserted success, but no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions are given. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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