submit_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the background resume side effect, states that the claimed_by checks are warn-only and never block the write, and explains that omitting claimed_by preserves existing behavior. It does not cover error/failure behavior for an invalid stage or content, leaving a gap.

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?

Purpose, precondition, and side effect are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the optional-parameter semantics follow. The parenthetical version citation '(v3 §1)' is minor noise, but overall every sentence contributes information.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, validity precondition, side effects, and optional-parameter semantics well. Remaining gaps — expected content format, behavior on a non-waiting stage, and what the caller observes after the background resume — are notable but secondary.

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 only 25%. The description adds real meaning for claimed_by (self-declared peer-session name, optional, checks are warn-only, recorded as the stage claim) and constrains the valid values of stage via the waiting-list rule, but `run` and `content` are left to inference. It compensates partially, not fully, for the low coverage.

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 specific verb (write the answer) applied to a specific resource (an external stage) and adds the key side effect (resume the run in the background). By tying valid stages to what external_prompt lists under `waiting`, it also implicitly separates itself from sibling tools like resume_run.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for use (the stage must be one external_prompt lists under `waiting`) and explains the trigger condition for the follow-on resume (once all of them are answered). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for other cases.

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