submit_config

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions validation and GitHub issue creation but omits what happens on failure, rate limits, or whether authentication is required. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence of 20 words is concise but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or steps). Not verbose but could be more organized.

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?

Despite an output schema, description is incomplete given 4 parameters and no schema descriptions. Does not explain alternative config inputs, side effects, or how GitHub issue URL is returned. Siblings like 'validate_config' suggest additional context needed.

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 description only says 'Submit a custom config file' without explaining each parameter's role (e.g., config_path vs config_json, testing_notes, github_token). Does not clarify that one of config_path/config_json is expected.

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?

Clearly states 'Submit a custom config file to the community' with specific actions: validates and creates a GitHub issue. Distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_config' which only validates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., 'validate_config' or 'push_config'). Does not mention prerequisites like needing a GitHub token or which config format to provide.

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