Submit candidate result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key effects: 'closes the producer lease' and that a reviewer must check it. It also adds behavioral constraints on artifactRefs and usage. While it does not mention potential side effects like idempotency or reversibility, the disclosed behaviors are significant and non-obvious from the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loads the main verb, and conveys essential information without fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, lease effect, artifact constraint, and usage advice. It is concise yet dense.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and a couple of parameter constraints but omits critical context about parameters like claims, summary, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, and what the tool returns. An agent would need additional documentation to use this tool correctly.

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 provides semantics for two parameters: artifactRefs (must belong to taskId) and usage (include when known). The other eight parameters (e.g., claims, summary, expectedVersion) receive no explanation, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. This is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters and nested objects.

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 action: 'Submit a worker result as candidate only.' It differentiates from verification tools (result_check, result_verify) by emphasizing 'candidate only' and requiring a 'different reviewer' to check it. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use: submitting a candidate result for review, not final. It also provides a concrete prerequisite: 'artifactRefs must belong to this taskId — call artifact_put on the same task first.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, though 'candidate only' implies avoiding this for final verification.

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