Submit candidate result

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 explicitly states a key side-effect ('closes the producer lease') and the candidate-only nature requiring a reviewer. It also includes constraints on artifactRefs and summary length. It does not cover failure semantics or idempotency, but the most critical behaviors are transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second exposes the side-effect and review requirement, and the third packs actionable constraints. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a complex operation with 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers key constraints but omits semantics for leaseToken, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, claims, and unresolved, and doesn't explain the subsequent workflow (e.g., which tool to use for review). It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without opening the schema.

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 the description must compensate. It only adds meaning to artifactRefs (must belong to taskId, no child-task artifacts), summary (500 char max), and usage (include when known). The remaining seven parameters—leaseToken, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, taskId, workerId, claims, unresolved—receive no explanation, leaving the agent to infer their roles from names and schema alone.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Submit a worker result as candidate only.' It immediately distinguishes itself from finalization tools by stating 'a different reviewer must check it' and clarifies it closes the producer lease. This clearly separates it from siblings like result_check or task_commit.

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 usage context: this is for candidate submission that requires review, not final commit. It gives actionable guidance like 'artifactRefs must belong to this taskId' and 'call artifact_put on the same task first.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, which would make the routing even clearer.

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