Submit a schema request

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which partially cover behavioral traits. The description adds a security constraint (avoiding secrets) but does not disclose the outcome of submission (e.g., return value or next steps), which is a gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word contributes meaning: the first defines the action and target, the second adds critical safety instruction. No unnecessary 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?

While the description covers the core action and a key constraint, it lacks context about the submission process (e.g., expected output, how to track the request via sibling tool check_schema_request_status). Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, more detail on post-submission behavior would improve completeness.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing the required six fields and providing a security constraint that applies to parameters like requester_contact. This guidance helps the agent avoid mistakes.

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 a six-field intake for missing or brittle browser workflows. It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('schema request'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_schema and check_schema_request_status which handle different operations.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('missing or brittle browser workflow') and gives a security guideline ('Never include cookies, API keys, or private session data'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like lookup_schema for existing schemas.

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