submit_attribution

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that writes must be enabled via an environment flag and that the mutation is neither live-validated nor live-tested — genuinely useful risk context for a non-idempotent, open-world write. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, though it never explains the confirm_destructive switch or what the side effects actually are.

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?

Front-loaded and short, with the endpoint and mutation warning first. Minor waste: 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' restate the same caveat twice.

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?

An output schema means return values need not be described, but for a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent tool with an entirely undocumented parameter set, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the payload shape and the confirmation flag. Pointing at docs/api.md is not enough to call it safely.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It covers only two: 'payload' is deferred to external docs and 'path' is explicitly ruled out; 'query' and especially 'confirm_destructive' (the safety-relevant one) are never mentioned.

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?

It names a verb, resource and HTTP endpoint (POST /v1/user/attribute), which tells the agent this submits user attribution data. However, 'attribution' is never defined and the actual effect is delegated entirely to 'docs/api.md', so the agent cannot distinguish the operation from siblings like update_ticket or sync_account without outside reading.

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 only conditional stated is a technical prerequisite (FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true), not a when-to-use rule. Nothing says which situations call for submitting attribution versus other write tools in the sibling list, and no exclusions are given.

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