codesafe_submit_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses the mutation behavior, dry-run default, environment variable requirement, confirmation flag, and the verification that raises if no state change occurs. This is rich behavioral context beyond any structured fields.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a parameter breakdown, and a warning section. It is dense but not bloated; every sentence adds necessary 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, safety behavior, and verification. Since an output schema is present, return values need no explanation, making the description contextually 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the audits array structure, bugId/pkResbug alternatives, auditResult/verdict mapping, and dry_run/confirm_write semantics. However, task_id is not explained beyond being required, leaving a small gap.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Write audit verdicts back to the platform', and specifies the exact endpoint and UI effect. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is the only tool that mutates the platform.

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 description gives clear usage context: it is the only mutation tool, so it should be used for persisting verdicts while siblings are read-only. It also advises to prefer dry_run first and write in small batches, providing explicit when-to-use guidance.

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