submit_action_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool validates and appends and does not grant authority, but it omits details about the required caller_token, what validation entails, side effects, or failure behavior. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. The caveat 'grants no authority' is a meaningful behavioral note. It is appropriately sized, though thin on content.

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 nested action_request object, required caller_token, and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the expected format of a normalized action request, the token's origin or purpose, or the tool's role in the broader workflow with siblings like evaluate_action_gate or record_human_approval.

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% and the description provides no parameter information. It does not explain the structure of 'action_request' or the purpose of 'caller_token', leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone. The tool has only two parameters, so the description should have easily compensated, but it doesn't.

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 function with a specific verb ('Validate and append') and resource ('one normalized action request'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('grants no authority'). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on evidence and approval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus siblings. The 'grants no authority' hint implies it's not for authority-granting, but there is no clear 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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