submit_ioc_with_approval

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

The description discloses that the tool may return a blocked/proposal result if conditions are not met, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether a proposal is created), authentication needs, or other behavioral traits beyond the conditions listed.

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 a single sentence that conveys core purpose and conditions, making it concise. However, it could be more structured by separating the action from the conditions for better readability.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits any explanation of the return value. With 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. However, it does not describe any parameter (e.g., 'approved' connection to approval, 'to_ids', 'category', etc.). The mention of 'approval' is vague and not linked to the 'approved' parameter.

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 action (submit an IOC to MISP) and the conditions (write enabled, role permits, approval given). It distinguishes from siblings like propose_attribute by explicitly mentioning the approval workflow and blocked/proposal result.

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 implies when to use (when approval is required and conditions met) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like propose_attribute or explain how to determine if write is enabled or how to obtain approval.

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