submit_study_candidate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It implies a mutation with asynchronous side effects ('queue ... runs') but says nothing about idempotency, whether admission is reversible, what happens on a duplicate or invalid candidate, or what state the study enters afterward.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient expression, leaving the definition under-specified for a three-parameter mutation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is a deep nested candidate specification with zero documented fields and no annotations. For a tool that admits a candidate and enqueues multiple runs, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% across three parameters, and the description never mentions study_id, candidate, or request_id. The word 'frozen' hints at a constraint on the candidate but does not explain the nested ProgramSpec/name fields, and the likely idempotency role of request_id is left entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Admit') and resource ('a frozen candidate') and adds the concrete consequence of queueing baseline/control/candidate development runs, so the agent knows this is a submission that kicks off work. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby submit_experiment and submit_inspection siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 choose this over submit_experiment or submit_inspection, and no stated preconditions such as whether the study must be in a particular state or what 'frozen' requires. The only implied trigger is possession of a frozen candidate.

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