submit_ioc_with_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it may return a 'blocked/proposal result' if conditions not met, which adds transparency about failure modes. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., that it creates an attribute in MISP) or success behavior beyond the condition check.

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 concisely captures the core purpose and conditions. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though leaving out parameter details reduces its effectiveness.

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?

With 9 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently. It lacks details on parameter meanings, especially approval-related fields, and does not explain the return value despite an output schema existing.

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, but it provides no explanation of individual parameters. Parameters like approval_token and approval_request_id are critical for the workflow but are not mentioned. The agent would have no guidance on how to use these parameters correctly.

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's purpose: submitting an IOC to MISP under specific conditions (write enabled, role permits, approval given). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the approval workflow, differentiating it from propose_attribute or direct submission tools.

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 implicitly tells when to use: when you have required write permissions and approval. It implies not to use if you want to propose without direct submission (use propose_attribute). However, it could be more explicit about when not to use or list alternatives.

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