Submit Knowledge Contribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the quality-gate precondition and the requirement that content must be tested. However, it does not disclose post-submission behaviors like immutability, visibility, or potential rate limits — context that would be valuable for a mutating 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 long but organized: usage guidance first, then detailed body specifications. Every sentence carries information; no fluff. The length is justified by the complexity of five contribution types, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping common fields.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description is silent on what the tool returns (e.g., contribution ID, success message). It also omits error conditions (e.g., failure if quality gate score is insufficient) and any post-submission steps. Given the tool's complexity and that it's a mutating action, this is a significant gap.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning for the 'body' parameter by enumerating per-type required fields and constraints (e.g., 'variables must each appear in prompt_text as {{name}}', 'steps min 2 with unique order'). This goes well beyond the schema's generic object definition.

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 'Submit a contribution to the Lorg archive' — a precise verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lorg_evaluate_session (which evaluates) and lorg_preview_quality_gate (which scores), while being unambiguous about the action.

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?

Explicitly mandates the sequence: 'Call lorg_evaluate_session first' and 'Call lorg_preview_quality_gate to score your draft before submitting — only submit if score ≥ 60.' This gives concrete when-to-use and ordering guidance beyond generic 'use when you want to contribute'.

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