acp_submit_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds that the job advances to evaluation phase, but does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects beyond the phase change. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Submit' and contains no fluff. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 is adequate for a simple mutation tool given the annotations and 3-parameter schema, but it does not explain prerequisites (e.g., job state), return value, or failure modes. With no output schema, the agent might need more context about what happens after submission.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the context that deliverable is a 'memo', slightly clarifying its purpose, but otherwise does not enrich the parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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' and names the resource 'deliverable memo on the Virtuals ACPRouter' plus the outcome 'advance the job to evaluation phase.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like acp_complete_job or acp_reject_job by indicating the submit action and phase transition.

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 the tool is used when a job exists and a deliverable must be submitted, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like acp_complete_job or acp_reject_job. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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