submit_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the state transition to pending_review, moderator review, seller notification, and the gate refusal behavior. It also clarifies that the tool never publishes content, which is material side-effect information beyond the name/schema.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The third sentence partly restates the pending_review outcome from the first, so there is minor redundancy, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter shape and the presence of an output schema, the description covers process, side effects, and refusal behavior well. It is incomplete only in the parameter semantics area, which is significant enough to prevent a higher score.

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 0% and the description never mentions item_type or item_id. While 'Submit a draft' implies the item is a draft, the agent is not told what item_type values are valid, how item_type relates to item_id, or any format constraints, so the description does not compensate for the bare 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?

The description names a specific action (submit a draft for moderation), the target resource (draft), and the resulting state (pending_review, moderation queue), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling draft creation/update/check tools. The 'Nothing goes live' clause further disambiguates it from any publish-style operation.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to run check_draft first and explains that submissions with missing content are refused, giving a clear precondition. It does not enumerate exclusions for all siblings, but the moderation context makes the appropriate use obvious.

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