submit_experiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavioral detail: the launch is asynchronous, duplicate requests do not restart the experiment, and there is no fixed runtime kill. This goes beyond the tool name and schema, though it does not cover response shape, error behavior, or auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the main action, duplicate-request idempotency, and polling/no-kill expectations. No filler or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter submission action, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits how the agent should determine submission success and which specific sibling to poll for status. 'Poll status' is helpful but vague about the mechanism.

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 only a run_id string with no description, and the description does not explicitly define run_id. It weakly ties run_id to 'a prepared experiment' and duplicate-request behavior, but the semantic burden falls mostly on the parameter name itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Launch a prepared experiment asynchronously.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_experiment (preparation) and get_experiment/read_log (monitoring), so an agent can tell what action it performs.

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 when to use the tool—on an already-prepared experiment—and gives follow-up guidance to 'Poll status.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool versus create_experiment or get_experiment, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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