submit_jcl

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the risk class is known. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the governance gates a call passes through (pre-flight scan, change ticket, change window, optional human approval governed by SECURITY_* settings), which materially affects whether a call will be blocked or held. It stops short of explaining failure modes or what a call returns.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the verb and resource front-loaded before the governance caveat. The parenthetical "(SECURITY_* settings)" is terse to the point of being cryptic, slightly reducing clarity in exchange for brevity.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions but says nothing about the return value (job ID, submission status, wait/timeout behavior) or what happens when governance rejects the submission. Annotations carry the risk profile, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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 100%, so every parameter including jcl, wait, dryRun, timeout and changeTicket is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. The mention of "dry-run" echoes the schema's dryRun rather than extending it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Submit inline JCL to JES for execution"), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings such as get_job_jcl or get_job_status. It does not explicitly name the sibling a caller should prefer for adjacent operations, but the action 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?

"Governed: pre-flight scan, change ticket, change window, optional dry-run and human approval" signals the prerequisites and the existence of a safe non-submitting mode, which is real usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g. dryRun before a real submit, or list_environments to pick a target) and no when-not guidance is given.

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