submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the idempotency constraint ('at most once per client_request_id') and the exact receipt content. It does not cover duplicate-call behavior or error handling, but the key side-effect semantics are present.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It prioritizes the idempotency rule and then specifies the receipt format, making every word informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented payload parameter, the description covers the essential receipt and dedup behavior but leaves out payload semantics, duplicate handling, and usage boundaries. It is minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that client_request_id is the deduplication key and implies that payload is hashed into payload_sha256. However, it does not explain what payload should contain, which is a notable gap for an arbitrary-object parameter.

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 states a specific behavior: submit at most once per client_request_id and return a receipt with task_id and payload_sha256. This is clear and functional, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state that this creates a task.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for submitting payloads, while the siblings read and cancel suggest inspection and abatement. However, the description does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives by name.

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