submit_competition_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as 'create or replace', overwriting behavior for most kinds, and brand-new submission for igp24-polynomial. It mentions scope requirement and optional meta validation. It could be improved by mentioning error scenarios or authentication details, but overall it provides good transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a single introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of known payload kinds and a note on overwrite behavior. No redundant information, and the key purpose and usage are front-loaded.

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 complexity of multiple submission kinds and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, payload variations, and overwrite behavior. However, it does not describe the return value or error conditions, which would complete the picture for an agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning to parameters. It explains the payload structure for each known kind and mentions meta's optionality and validation against metaSchema. The competition_id is implied by the instruction to call get_competition, but it is not explicitly described, so a slight gap remains.

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 ('Create or replace') and the resource ('the caller's submission for a competition'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the prerequisite to call get_competition and provides known payload kinds, setting it apart from other competition-related tools.

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 instructs to call get_competition first and build payload from submissionSpec.schema, providing clear context on when to use. It offers examples of known kinds but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it slightly lacks completeness in guidance.

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