brain_submit

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: automatic layer selection among the caller's own layers, a hard exclusion of `public`, receipt fields reporting the decision, and that `resolution_of` targets still pass through cloud writer evidence and ACL gates. It omits permission/auth requirements for the submit itself and any rate or size limits.

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 core action is front-loaded in one tight sentence, and the second paragraph is dense but every clause carries information. The imbalance is the only flaw: most of the text is spent on one optional parameter while `title` and `occurred_at` get none.

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 7-parameter write tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition should cover more ground. It explains the audience decision path but leaves two parameters and the overall submission/permission model unexplained; recounting receipt fields is also partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain `audience` semantics well and hints at `resolution_of` gating, and the first sentence maps text/path/url. It says nothing about `title` or `occurred_at` (format, timezone, meaning), leaving two of seven parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (submit) plus resource (team wiki) and adds the key constraint that exactly one of text/path/url must be supplied. It implicitly separates itself from brain_delete, brain_submissions and search_brain by verb, but never explicitly names an alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

Guidance is limited to the `audience` decision: what happens when it is omitted and the guarantee that Stigmergy never auto-selects `public`. There is no routing advice against siblings (e.g. when to submit vs. re-read with read_page or search_brain), no prerequisites, and no note on duplicate/idempotent submissions.

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