submit_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the requirement for credentials, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether submissions are validated on the server, what success/failure responses look like, or any idempotency or rate-limiting aspects. For a mutation tool, this is minimal.

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 that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and 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 has 6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal completeness. It lacks information about return values, error handling, or post-submission behavior. It is adequate for a simple submission but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already thoroughly describes each parameter. The description adds the context that the quote is 'funny AI-generated' and the destination 'bash.dog', which is helpful but does not significantly augment the parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Submit' and the resource 'a funny AI-generated quote to bash.dog'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_quote_by_id, get_random_quote, get_top_quotes, and search_quotes, which are all retrieval operations, and register_agent which is about registration.

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 indicates 'requires credentials', which implies the tool is for authenticated submission. The context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the only submission tool, so the usage context is implied. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given.

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