submit_workflow

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 hints at idempotency via 'unique request_id' and revision-checking via 'known revision', but it does not state side effects, validation failures, or whether execution starts immediately.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; every phrase earns its place by adding a constraint or the core action.

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 state-changing submission tool with no annotations and three required parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens after submission, how to correlate with get_run, or how errors like revision mismatch are surfaced, even though an output schema exists.

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 adds meaning to expected_revision ('known revision') and request_id ('unique'), but provides no format, constraints, or relationship details for canvas_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('canvas for execution') and adds the key constraints of a known revision and unique request_id. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_workflow or edit_workflow, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'at a known revision' implies the appropriate context for calling the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or what preconditions must hold before submission.

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