dynamic_workflow_submit_plan

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or permission requirements. The statement 'under its exclusive assignment lease' hints at a condition but does not explain what it entails.

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 sentence, so it is not overly long, but it is so brief and jargon-heavy that it conveys almost no actionable information. The sentence does not earn its place because it fails to provide meaningful content.

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 complexity of the input schema with 12 required parameters and a nested plan object, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the plan structure, the meaning of the various refs and receipts, or what an 'exclusive assignment lease' is, and the output schema is not even described.

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?

With a schema coverage of 0%, none of the 12 required parameters are explained in the description. Terms like 'canonical planner plan' and 'exclusive assignment lease' are not mapped to any parameter names, so the agent receives no help in understanding what values to supply.

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 ('Commit') and a resource ('canonical planner plan'), so it is not a tautology. However, the meaning of 'commit' and 'exclusive assignment lease' is domain-specific and unclear without additional context, making it hard for an agent to reliably understand the intended operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus any alternative. No conditions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent with no information about context of use.

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