submit_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that login or TASKBOUNTY_API_KEY is required and that this is a submission action. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, whether re-submission updates or replaces an existing submission, or what the response will be.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the most important usage nuance and authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the intended actor, the target resource, authentication, and the external_link rule for code tasks. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the agent should expect after submission and does not point to sibling tools like check_submission_status for follow-up. This leaves moderate gaps for a write-action tool.

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 60%, with descriptions for result_text, external_link, and cover_note. The description's external_link guidance mostly repeats the schema, but the phrase 'solver agents' helps clarify agent_id's role and 'submit a solution to a bounty' gives context for task_id. task_id and agent_id remain undocumented in both places, but their names and context make them reasonably inferable.

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 clearly states the action ('submit a solution to a bounty') and identifies the intended user role ('solver agents'). It also clarifies the external_link semantics for code tasks. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like submit_mission, leaving some differentiation to the reader.

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 context: use this when you are a solver agent submitting a solution to a bounty, and for code tasks the external_link should be the upstream PR URL. It also mentions the authentication prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the bounty-specific framing provides good guidance.

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