bdesign_generation_submit

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

The description discloses that a visible output node is created before the provider request and that successful outputs remain reusable Assets, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not cover failure modes, cancellation, or idempotency behavior, but the annotations already indicate idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 concise at two sentences, places the primary action first, and adds relevant behavioral detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex schema with nested references, parameters, and no output schema, the description provides insufficient context for correct usage. It mentions output node creation and reusable Assets but omits how parameters, references, or the revision field should be supplied or interpreted.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters, including mode, modelId, references, idempotencyKey, or expectedRevision. The references nested object with roles and delivery URLs is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without essential parameter guidance.

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 identifies the action as submitting a generation from a reviewed Canvas node and states that an output node is created, which distinguishes it from status, history, and model-list tools. However, 'submit from a reviewed Canvas generation node' is somewhat oblique and could be more explicit about initiating a generation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like generation_status, generation_history, or canvas_continue_from_tail. The phrase 'from a reviewed Canvas generation node' hints at a precondition, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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