submit_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that registration is atomic, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits other critical aspects such as side effects, permission requirements, error handling, or what the tool returns. Given the lack of annotations and the significance of atomicity, this is incomplete coverage.

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, compact sentence that leads with the core action and key constraint ('atomically'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is extremely sparse for a tool that accepts a free-form graph object. It doesn't define the expected structure of the DAG beyond two hints, doesn't mention what the output represents, and provides no information about validations, constraints, or failure modes. An agent would struggle to construct a correct graph argument with only this description.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'graph' parameter (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does add some semantics by explaining how to express local refs and control dependencies, which gives meaning to the free-form object. However, this is only a partial explanation and does not cover other aspects like how to define tasks, outputs, or dependencies beyond the two hints, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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 states a clear verb ('Register') and resource ('batch DAG') and explicitly mentions atomicity, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_task (which likely handles single tasks). However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'batch DAG' or why it differs from other submission tools, so it's clear but not fully specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It briefly hints at graph syntax ('Local refs use @task/artifact and control deps use @task') but does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., submit_task) would be preferable. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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