huddo_app_submit

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses all-or-nothing atomicity, optimistic-concurrency conflict behavior with a named error (REVISION_CONFLICT), and the visibility side effect (members see it at once, nothing posted to chat). It stops short of noting permission/auth requirements beyond the schema's 'as' parameter.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — mechanism, concurrency contract, recovery step, and visibility caveat — and the core purpose is front-loaded. No padding or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior itself, and it does: atomicity, conflict failure mode, retry guidance, and side-effect visibility. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the op values (add/remove/replace/test), explains path as a JSON Pointer with a concrete example, and clarifies that expect is 'the revision you read' from huddo_app_state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — change a room app's shared state — and pins down the mechanism (JSON Patch ops with op/path semantics). It is clearly distinguishable from huddo_app_state (read) and huddo_send (chat post).

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?

Explicit guidance on when to pass expect, what to do on REVISION_CONFLICT (read again and retry), and which sibling to use to notify people (huddo_send). Conditions for correct invocation are spelled out rather than implied.

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