pack_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses validation (blocked invented numbers and banned phrases), PDF rendering, ATS check, persistence, undo support (implying reversibility), a state change to pack_ready, and error-driven retry behavior. Auth requirements, rate limits, and response shape remain undisclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with mode and step, then payload, then side effects, then the error-recovery rule. No padding; every clause carries operational information.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with a nested CV object, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers workflow position, validation gates, side effects, reversibility, and failure handling. Gaps are job_id semantics and what a successful response contains.

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, and it only partly does: it clarifies that 'cv' conforms to a cv_schema and that 'letter' is a cover letter. The required 'job_id' parameter is never mentioned, and the nested CV structure is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (submit) plus the two resources (CV, letter) and situates itself as 'step 2 of the pack', which implicitly separates it from pack_create/pack_prompt. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Agent mode, step 2 of the pack' tells the agent this follows a prior step, and the final sentence gives an explicit retry rule on refusal. It does not explicitly name the predecessor tool (pack_create) or any alternative, so sequencing depends on the agent inferring the pack workflow.

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