Submit contribution

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about explicit confirmation and a live portal adapter. However, it does not explicitly disclose that the action is final, irreversible, or that it will submit data to an external system.

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 single concise sentence and is not bloated. It loses some value by being cryptic, but it is appropriately short and to the point.

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 output schema and only three required parameters, the description should explain what happens on success or failure, what the return value is, and how prerequisites like the live portal adapter are checked. It provides almost none of this context.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of employer, period, or explicitConfirmation. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type and constraint information.

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 says 'Final submission requires explicit per-run confirmation and a verified live portal adapter,' which only states prerequisites rather than clearly describing the action as 'submit a contribution to the portal.' The tool's purpose must be inferred from the title and 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?

The description provides no clear guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as prepare_contribution or upload_contribution. It mentions a requirement for a verified live portal adapter but does not explain how to satisfy it or when this tool is appropriate.

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