submit_child

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the side effects ('evaluation and archive insertion'), disallows out-of-band modifications ('The Engine rejects it'), and specifies the exact return structure including the success dict and 'standard error dict.' This provides a solid behavioral contract beyond the raw schema.

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 concise yet information-dense, with clear sections: purpose, usage instruction, return contract, and a mistake warning. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to parse. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, nested files object, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema in the description, the text is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output. It does not detail all nested output fields, but the 'standard error dict' and named return fields provide sufficient context. Slight gap: it does not mention prerequisites like opening a run, but this is implied by sibling 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining key parameters: 'Echo its parent_sample_seq' clarifies parent_sample_seq, 'use the selected or suggested operator' clarifies operator, and 'explain reasoning in notes' clarifies notes. The 'full child file contents' maps to the files parameter. While run_id and parent_id are not explicitly described, they are self-evident from context. This is strong compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's primary action: 'Submit full child file contents for evaluation and archive insertion.' This uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('child file contents'), and explicitly differentiates its purpose from siblings by specifying it should be called 'once after producing one mutation from the current parent bundle.' This makes it distinct from tools like next_parent or best.

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 description provides clear contextual usage: 'Call this once after producing one mutation from the current parent bundle.' It also gives specific instructions on what to include (parent_sample_seq, operator, notes) and a warning to avoid modifying content outside EVOLVE-BLOCK markers. This offers strong situational guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for reference.

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