action_submit

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint false; description adds policy evaluation and return fields. Does not disclose error handling, side effects, or authentication needs. Adequate but could be richer.

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?

Concise, well-structured with purpose, explanation, Args, and Returns sections. Front-loaded with main point. No redundant 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?

Covers purpose, input, approval flow, and return fields. Output schema exists so return details are not required. Lacks error scenarios or prerequisites, but complete enough for typical use.

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 0% but description's Args section explains each parameter thoroughly, including example values for connector and operation, and format for payload. Adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'submit' and resource 'action' with explicit context of governed execution and policy evaluation. Distinguishes from siblings like approve_action or check_policy by emphasizing the submission process.

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?

Provides context on policy evaluation and approval routing but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use the tool. Implicit guidance, but lacks clear exclusions.

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