rt_submit_evaluation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so excellently: it reveals that the tool operates by name, refuses ambiguous matches to avoid mis-filing, automatically determines the stage, requires a two-call gate with explicit confirmation, and files in the token owner's name (with practical implications). It also notes that structured questionnaires are not supported, which is critical behavioral context. No contradictions.

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 verbose but highly dense with critical usage constraints. It uses all-caps headings for key points, making it scannable despite length. However, some repetition exists (e.g., the two-call gate is mentioned multiple times, and the 'IT IS FILED IN THE TOKEN OWNER'S NAME' section is extensive). It could be more concise without losing essential details, but the structure aids comprehension.

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 high complexity (6 parameters, critical safety implications, no output schema or annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, usage criteria, behavioral constraints, parameter uses, and edge cases (ambiguous names, unsupported questionnaires). The lack of an output schema is compensated by explaining the two-call preview/write flow, making the behavior fully predictable.

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 schema covers all parameters descriptively (candidate, offer, rating, ratingNote, stage, confirm), but the description goes further by clarifying the meaning of 'offer' (role title or id, not an offer object) and 'candidate' (full name, not id). It also emphasizes that ratingNote should contain auditable reasoning. Although it doesn't detail every parameter's syntax, the high schema coverage (100%) reduces the need. The description adds value by explaining the two-call gate and the confirmation semantics.

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 writes an evaluation (rating + note) onto a candidate for a role, targeting the 'Evaluation' tab. It explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rt_get_evaluations (which reads) and rt_add_note (which likely writes a generic note, not an evaluation). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 extensive usage guidance: it explains when to use this tool (to file an evaluation), when not to (never for conversations the token owner didn't have), and explicitly directs to call rt_get_rating_scale if unsure about ratings. It also names sibling tools (rt_get_rating_scale) and clarifies the two-call gate pattern, leaving no ambiguity on when to invoke this tool.

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