set_task_no_submission

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a write operation (【書き込み操作】), requires confirm:true to execute (otherwise returns preview), and execution is logged. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds.

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 concise at two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds key behavioral details. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior but lacks details on return values or error cases. It explains preview vs. execution and logging, but an agent might benefit from knowing what the response looks like.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., confirm behavior is duplicated from schema). No additional meaning is conveyed for the other parameters.

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 verb '変更する' (change) and the resource '提出不要フラグ' (no-submission flag), and explicitly mentions the operation is reversible. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are mostly read-only or different write 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. However, the sibling tools are mostly unrelated (list, get, auth), so the usage context is implicitly clear. The description does mention the confirm parameter behavior, which is a partial guideline.

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