submit_agent_targeting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'persists' artifacts (implying a write operation) and returns 'policy/preview', which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of prerequisites and typical next steps offers partial transparency but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, prerequisites, typical next step, and formats. Each sentence adds value, such as clarifying parameter formats and usage context. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the format details into the purpose statement, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter formats, which compensates for the lack of annotations. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, allowing it to focus on input and behavioral context. However, it could improve by addressing all parameters and providing more behavioral details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'keywords' and 'subreddit_groups' by specifying formats ('list[str]' and a structure example), which helps clarify these parameters. However, it doesn't address 'product_slug', 'session_id', 'client_id', or 'keyword_search_params', leaving half of the parameters undocumented. This partial coverage results in a baseline score.

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 purpose: 'Persist targeting artifacts (keywords/subreddits) and return policy/preview.' It specifies the verb ('persist'), the resources ('targeting artifacts'), and the outcome ('return policy/preview'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'modify_keywords' or 'modify_subreddits', which appear to handle similar resources.

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 guidelines with prerequisites ('prompt pack must be acknowledged for `session_id`', 'artifacts should already be saved for best results') and a typical next step ('approve targeting...'). It mentions an alternative ('run_full_agentic_onboarding') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like 'configure_targeting' or 'submit_onboarding_artifacts'.

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