Submit Harbor Evidence

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the specific route and that it's a low-level API call, which helps set expectations about behavior without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the use case and immediately provides a negative case with alternative. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers when to use and the alternative, but given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), it lacks detailed guidance on the structure of body and recognition_proof. The output schema mitigates some completeness concerns, but parameter-level gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'body' and 'recognition_proof' generically without detailing the other three parameters (intent_id, idempotency_key, completion_preset_id). Meaningful parameter semantics are largely missing, leaving agents to guess the purpose of nested objects.

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 tool submits Harbor evidence to a specific API route. It identifies the required inputs (request body and recognition proof) and distinguishes it from the sibling paybond_submit_spend_evidence by naming the low-level vs high-level context.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (when you have the evidence body and proof for the specific route) and when not to use (for high-level spend-control path). Directly names the alternative tool (paybond_submit_spend_evidence), providing clear guidance.

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