submit_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a small insight that dispatch is policy-controlled and that the response is quick, but it omits side effects, idempotency behavior, permission requirements, and whether the job is guaranteed to execute.

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 front-loaded sentence that communicates the primary action and return value efficiently. The trailing policy clause is somewhat vague but does not add unnecessary bulk.

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 tool has a complex nested spec, an idempotency key parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. This minimal description does not give an agent enough context to construct a valid request or understand the job submission lifecycle.

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 mentions neither 'spec' nor 'idempotency_key'. The nested JobSpec with many properties is left entirely to schema names and defaults, so the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 concrete action ('Persist an experiment') and a clear return value ('return its job ID'), which distinguishes it from job retrieval and cancellation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use submit_job versus get_job, cancel_job, or record_experiment_result. The phrase 'existing project policy controls dispatch' hints at behavior but does not explain selection criteria or alternatives.

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