workbench_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the action is one-time, requires user authorization, and may consume web quota. It stops short of describing post-submission state or failure behavior, so it does not reach a 5.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and state requirement, then append the authorization and quota caveats. Every word adds operational guidance with no redundancy or restatement of schema 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?

For a one-parameter submit action with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what to submit, when it is allowed, the one-time constraint, and quota consequence. Some detail about what happens after submission is missing, but the simple scope keeps this gap minor.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for job_id, and the description does not explicitly mention job_id. However, describing the target as 'an already prepared READY form' implies job_id identifies that prepared form, providing minimal semantic context without fully explaining the parameter.

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') with a clear object ('an already prepared READY form'), establishing the exact action and required state. The phrase 'already prepared READY' differentiates it from sibling preparation tools like workbench_prepare.

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?

It clearly signals the tool is for the post-preparation step by requiring a READY form, and it adds explicit constraints: exactly once, user authorization required, and possible web quota consumption. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the workflow context is clear.

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