submit_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the validation check ('artifact is checked for shape'), the failure mode ('thin or malformed submission comes back with a reason and the phase is unchanged'), and the recommended follow-up ('fix it and submit again'). It does not describe success-side effects beyond receiving the next instruction, but this is sufficient for a submission tool.

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 clear one-sentence purpose, a behavioral note about validation, and a brief Args list. Every sentence contributes value, and the most important information (how to advance) is 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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: when to use, what to submit, failure behavior, and how to recover. It could be slightly more explicit about the success path (e.g., phase progression), but 'receive the next instruction' implies the next step. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: `session_id` is sourced from `start_topic`, and `artifact` is defined as 'whatever the current instruction asked you to produce' with concrete examples (markdown string or list of objects). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's simple type/title fields.

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 tool's function: 'Hand in the current step's work and receive the next instruction.' It uses a specific verb ('Hand in') and resource (current step's work), and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by noting 'This is the only way to advance,' making its unique role unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: whenever you have produced the artifact for the current step and want to advance. It states 'This is the only way to advance,' implying that other tools like `next_drill` or `status` are not alternates for this action, though it does not explicitly name them as exclusions.

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