sdd-requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Submit requirements artifact' implies a write operation but does not explain side effects, validation, conflict handling, or reversibility, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise phrase with no unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but as a statement of purpose it is structurally sound.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the artifact's purpose, the meaning of revision and checksum, or what outcome the agent should expect, making the tool invocation risky and unclear.

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 only 25%, and the description does not mention any parameter (featureName, content, expectedRevision, expectedArtifactSha256) or their semantics. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without understanding the parameter roles.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' and a resource 'requirements artifact', which clearly indicates the tool's function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by its focus on requirements, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or provide scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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