jobs_submit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions idempotency (SDK supplies header) and a cost ceiling (max_cost_usd_micros), which are useful. However, it does not describe mutation, side effects, return value, or async behavior, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding essential shape requirements. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Given the complex nested input schema and no output schema, the description lacks information about what happens after submission (e.g., return job ID, queuing behavior, polling guidance). It is adequate for a basic submit tool but leaves open questions about response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists key parameters (job_type, input.json, max_cost_usd_micros) but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. It repeats the shape requirement without adding new 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 clearly states 'Submit a platform-managed job', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jobs_cancel', 'jobs_get', etc., by focusing on submission.

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 specifies the required API shape (job_type, input.json, max_cost_usd_micros) and mentions idempotency, giving context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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