Submit library result

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotation set: submission 'stages results without changing current labels' (a state-effect disclosure that destructiveHint=false alone doesn't convey) and retries with an identical submission_key 'replay the recorded response' (concrete idempotency semantics). It also warns not to fabricate zero usage. It doesn't cover permissions, error responses, or limits, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, then routes to the sibling and adds constraints in descending priority. Slightly dense and the 'unavailable usage honestly' sentence partly duplicates the usage property description in the schema.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow context (sequencing, staging semantics, retry replay) but never indicates what the tool returns or how to interpret a submission response. Adequate to call correctly, incomplete for interpreting results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds operational guidance the schema doesn't state, namely copying the packet's identifiers and revision hashes unchanged and quoting evidence verbatim. It does not touch several of the eleven parameters (result shape, usage fields), leaving those to the 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?

States a specific verb ('Store') plus the resource ('a client's shelf-assignment result for one currently leased Librarian item'), including the scope constraint (one leased item). This clearly separates it from claim_library_work (which creates the lease) and apply_reshelving (which previews/applies label changes).

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use after claim_library_work') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('use apply_reshelving to preview accepted assignments as label changes'). No inference is required about 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.