vibekit_submit_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the AI writes code, commits to GitHub, and deploys, and that it returns a task ID. It could further disclose side effects like branch creation or deployment requirements, but the core behavior is well-communicated.

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?

Two efficient sentences that front-load the action and outcome. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return value (task ID). It could expand on what constitutes a task or the deployment domain, but the sibling tools cover polling, making this sufficient.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 verb 'submit', the resource 'coding task', and the outcomes: AI writes code, commits to GitHub, deploys. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vibekit_get_task and vibekit_wait_for_task by explicitly mentioning that it returns a task ID for polling.

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 implies usage when you want to submit a coding task and need a task ID for later polling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vibekit_chat for conversational tasks). No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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