submit_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the telemetry consent requirement and where data is stored (Supabase), which are non-obvious behavioral traits. It also explains the level semantics. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens without consent, but the key behaviors are covered.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value—no filler. It efficiently communicates purpose, when to use, prerequisites, and parameter semantics in a short space.

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 that an output schema exists, return-value details are unnecessary. The description covers purpose, usage timing, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and level definitions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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 must fully compensate. It explains each parameter in plain language, provides an example for 'text', defines the 'level' scale, and clarifies 'user_prompt's purpose for telemetry. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a clear verb ('record') and a specific resource ('human's creative intent'), with a precise scope ('for subsequent actions in this session'). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on intent recording rather than audio, session, or transport 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?

Explicitly states when to call ('before a sequence of edits') and gives the rationale ('so trajectory steps are conditioned on intent'). It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires telemetry consent'), which is important for correct usage. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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