inject_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core side effect: 'marking it as submitted with timestamp.' However, it omits other relevant behavioral traits such as reversibility, permission requirements, or the outcome of submitting an already-submitted inject. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Submit an inject, marking it as submitted with timestamp.' Every word earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is highly concise while still conveying the essential action and result.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It states the action and the resulting state change. While it lacks details about edge cases or error behavior, the simplicity of the tool makes such details less critical. The description adequately covers what an agent needs to know for a straightforward submit operation.

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 sole parameter 'inject_id' is already fully described in the schema ('The ID of the inject to submit') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Submit an inject, marking it as submitted with timestamp.' It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('inject'), and distinguishes the action from sibling tools like inject_get or injects_list. The effect is uniquely described, making the tool's purpose 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does. In a context with many inject-related sibling tools, explicit usage guidance would be valuable, but it is entirely absent.

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