submit_for_approval

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds one genuinely valuable behavior: a confirmation_code must be obtained from a prior preview call, which the annotations cannot express. It does not disclose the resulting PO status, whether submission is reversible, or what failure modes look like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and eligibility, followed by a compact Args block. The Args block partially duplicates schema titles but earns its place by adding the preview invocation detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one non-obvious prerequisite — the confirmation_code workflow — is documented, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly.

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 carries the full burden and largely does: it defines 'po' as a purchase order ID and, more importantly, tells the agent exactly how to obtain 'confirmation_code' via preview("submit_for_approval", {"po": ...}). That is meaningfully more than the schema's bare titles. It omits the type/format of the ID and whether confirmation_code is mandatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a ... purchase order for approval'), which is meaningfully distinct from approve_purchase_order and amend_purchase_order. It never explicitly names those siblings, so the agent must infer the submit-vs-approve split from the verb alone.

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?

'draft (or rejected and fixed)' gives a clear state precondition that tells the agent which POs are eligible, which is real usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do if the PO is already pending approval.

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