submit_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool refuses without a valid, unused token, and explains the purpose of the check ('confirm before submitting real rather than advisory'). It also clarifies the only condition under which `acknowledged: true` is permissible. It doesn't fully state side effects, but no annotations exist and nothing contradicts the description.

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 four tight sentences with the core directive front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, high-stakes submission flow, no annotations), the description covers the critical preconditions, the acknowledgment rule, and the refusal behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is that several optional parameters are undocumented, but the essential calling context is present.

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 description adds real meaning to `confirmation_id` and `acknowledged`, which are the most safety-critical parameters. However, schema description coverage is 0% for 12 parameters, and the other 10 parameters (e.g., `job_url`, `steps`, `answers_used`, `vision_fallbacks`) receive no explanation. This partially compensates for the schema gap 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 opens with 'Record a submitted application,' giving a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the pre-submission step by requiring a `confirmation_id` from `request_submit_confirmation`, so an agent can tell this tool apart from siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'Call this only after clicking Submit.' It also gives precise preconditions for the `confirmation_id` and for `acknowledged: true`, including the requirement that the user explicitly approved a shown summary. This is unusually concrete guidance.

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