submit_for_review

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

Annotations already signal destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only behavior; the description adds valuable operational caveats: exact digest, separate submission flag, explicit host confirmation, and read-back of uncertain outcomes without replay. These details go beyond the structured hints and meaningfully reduce risk.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the safety requirements are listed compactly in the second sentence. Every clause contributes useful 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?

For a destructive external submission action with four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and prerequisites but omits key operational details such as the meaning/source of operationIds, what happens on verification failure, and what the result looks like. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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%, and the description only gives partial guidance for a few fields: the digest must be exact and host confirmation must be explicit. It does not explain planId, operationIds, or the authorization object enough, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Execute'), a specific resource ('submission-only plan'), and constraints ('exact fresh'), clearly separating it from planning siblings like plan_submission and from generic execution like apply_plan. It identifies the tool as an execution/actuation step, not a read-only or planning step.

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 gives clear contextual prerequisites: only valid when the caller has --allow-writes, the separate --allow-submission flag, the exact digest, and host confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the submission-only plan phrase is enough to route an agent toward this tool over planning tools.

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