mystorax_submit_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions an HTTP endpoint (POST /v1/goal) which implies a network operation, and lists job_class values. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, asynchronous behavior (e.g., does it return immediately and the job runs in background?), auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on submission. The sibling mystorax_job_status and mystorax_wait_stream_hint suggest this is asynchronous, but the description doesn't confirm that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the channel preference. No wasted words. Could arguably be more efficient but it's appropriately brief.

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?

Has no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage. With 8 parameters and only 1 documented, the description falls well short. It does list the job_class enum, which helps slightly, but the tool is incomplete for a 8-param submit tool with async hints from siblings.

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%, so description must compensate. It only documents job_class with its enum values. The other 7 parameters (host, mode, text, model, effort, worker, dispatch) are not explained at all. text is the required parameter yet the description never even names it explicitly.

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+resource+channel: 'Submit a goal to Conductor POST /v1/goal'. It distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Prefer this over talking to bridges or CLIs directly', which separates it from other mystorax tools. It's clear and specific but doesn't fully differentiate against all 9 siblings.

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 provides a clear 'prefer this over' guidance directing usage toward this tool rather than bridges/CLIs, but doesn't state when NOT to use it or what alternatives (e.g., capability_lookup, routing_guide) might be appropriate. The job_class enum values are listed, giving some usage context, but no exclusions for when other mystorax tools would be better.

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