submit_issue

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses deprecation behavior, visibility implications (private vs public), and that token is returned. It does not mention side effects beyond return value, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and return value, second gives requirement, third covers deprecation. Efficient and well-organized.

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?

Despite no output schema and 10 parameters, description covers purpose, return token, mutual requirement, visibility meaning, and deprecation. Lacks mention of idempotency or error conditions, but sufficient for a submit tool with good schema.

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. Description adds value by clarifying mutual requirement of reporter_git_sha and reporter_app_version, and deprecation of 'advisory' visibility. This extra context helps agents understand constraints beyond 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 clearly states 'Submit an issue to the configured operator Neotoma instance', specifying the verb (submit) and resource (issue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_issue_message and get_issue_status by mentioning the return of a guest_access_token for read-back.

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 explicitly requires providing at least one of reporter_git_sha or reporter_app_version. It hints at usage for creation, with token-based read-back via sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative scenarios.

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