dynamic_workflow_submit_builder_result

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a commit happens under lease but not the state-change consequences, idempotency behavior, revision-check semantics, or what invalidates the lease. Key parameters like expected_revision and idempotency_key imply concurrency controls that are never explained.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is genuinely concise. It is under-specified, which prevents a 5, but structural efficiency is not the main weakness.

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 commit operation with 16 required parameters, no annotations, no usage guidance, and no behavioral detail, this description is far too thin. The agent lacks the lease protocol context, idempotency rules, evidence structure expectations, and sequencing relative to other dynamic_workflow tools.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 16 required parameters. 'Content-addressed evidence' loosely maps to evidence_refs but does not define the required sha256, kind, or criterion_ids fields, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of nearly every input.

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 names a specific action ('Commit') and object ('builder result and content-addressed evidence under lease'), which goes beyond a tautology and roughly distinguishes it from sibling submit_plan/evaluator_verdict tools by resource. It does not define what a 'builder result' or 'lease' means, so it stops 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 about when to call this tool, what should precede it, or which alternatives exist. 'Under lease' hints at a protocol, but the agent must infer sequencing entirely from the tool name and sibling cluster.

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