submit_deposit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that an attempt is logged and cannot be replayed automatically, and that production requires HAL_ALLOW_PRODUCTION=1. It also implies a one-shot, non-reversible action. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact block of text, front-loaded with the core purpose ('REAL SUBMISSION'). It is not overly verbose and each sentence adds relevant information (when to call, prerequisites, environment, logging). The structure is logical and efficient, though it could be slightly more organized with bullet points for clarity.

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's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when to invoke, what to provide, environment requirements, and the one-shot behavior. It does not describe the return value or post-submission status, but that is not critical for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a destructive submission action.

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 compensate. It explicitly mentions 'Provide the reviewed checksum' (mapping to expected_sha256) and 'confirm=true' (mapping to confirm). It does not explain draft_id, but that is self-explanatory. It adds meaning to two of three parameters, but does not specify the exact format of the checksum or the implications of confirm=false. This is a partial but useful compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'REAL SUBMISSION of the tested draft.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_deposit and prepare_deposit by emphasizing that this is the actual submission step, not a validation or preparation step. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 states when to call: 'only on explicit user instruction after presentation of the file, authors/affiliations, license, and embargo.' It also lists prerequisites (provide checksum, confirm=true) and an environment requirement (HAL_ALLOW_PRODUCTION=1). It warns that an attempt is logged and cannot be replayed, which is crucial for an agent to avoid accidental double submission. This provides clear usage context and conditions.

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