submit_issue

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 is exceptionally transparent: it explains the authentication model (no Bearer token, AAuth signature, or guest token needed), that the token is an OUTPUT rather than a precondition, that anonymity covers only the submission, and the deprecated visibility alias behavior with exact response text. This gives the agent essential context about side effects and security aspects.

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 long but every sentence carries relevant information: purpose, token return, auth model, follow-up usage, required parameters, and deprecation warning. It is front-loaded with the main action. It could be better structured with bullet points for readability, but it is not verbose or wasteful.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description compensates well by explaining the return token, auth preconditions, required params, and deprecation behavior. It does not elaborate on all potential side effects (e.g., GitHub mirror behavior, error cases), but covers the most critical contextual information an agent needs to invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by reinforcing the conditional requirement for reporter_git_sha/reporter_app_version (already in schema) and, more importantly, by documenting the deprecated 'advisory' enum value for visibility, which is not present in the schema. This extra semantic detail about an accepted value improves parameter understanding.

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 action ('Submit an issue') and target ('configured operator Neotoma instance'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the follow-up token-scoped read-back tools (get_issue_status / add_issue_message), making it clear this is the initial submission action.

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 explicit guidance: it states when this tool is appropriate (submitting without prior identity), what must be provided (at least one of reporter_git_sha or reporter_app_version), and how to proceed after acceptance (use returned token for get_issue_status/add_issue_message). It also notes the deprecated visibility alias, giving clear exclusions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for cases where a guest token already exists.

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