pingen_submit_letter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action is 'IRREVERSIBLE AND CHARGEABLE,' states that it requires confirm:true, and details the physical mailing action. It also mentions optional print parameters. This is exemplary transparency for a side-effect-heavy 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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the most critical warnings ('IRREVERSIBLE AND CHARGEABLE') and efficiently packs in the action, the confirm requirement, and optional parameters. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: action, risk, confirmation, and printing options. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the required 'delivery_product' parameter, which could confuse an agent about what values are acceptable. Otherwise, it presents a clear picture of what happens upon invocation.

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 has zero description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaning for confirm (requires true) and enumerates possible values for print_mode and print_spectrum. However, it leaves letter_id and the required delivery_product unexplained. While it adds value for three of five parameters, the required delivery_product is completely unaddressed, limiting the compensatory effect.

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: 'prints and physically mails an existing DRAFT letter.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like pingen_send_letter (likely digital) and pingen_delete_letter by emphasizing physical mailing of a draft. The term 'submit' is clarified by the action of printing and mailing.

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 usage context: use when you need to physically mail an existing draft letter, with an explicit warning about irreversibility and chargeability. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by specifying 'DRAFT letter' and physical mailing, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It conveys the need for confirm:true.

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