submit_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Wait for completion' is a useful disclosure that the call blocks, but it does not clarify timeout behavior, failure semantics, or what happens when the job is not found or times out.

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 redundant filler. Every word adds meaning: 'existing' constrains the input, 'submit' states the action, and 'wait for completion' discloses blocking behavior.

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?

The core use case is clear and the output schema likely covers return structure, but timeout semantics are undefined for a parameter that is nullable and has a default of null. This is a meaningful gap because callers need to know whether null means indefinite wait and what units are used.

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, but it never explicitly mentions job_name or timeout. The connection to job_name is inferable from 'submit job,' and timeout is weakly implied by 'wait for completion,' but units, null semantics, and effect of timeout are left entirely to the schema's minimal titles.

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 specific action—'Submit an existing Abaqus job'—on a clear resource, and adds the expected blocking behavior 'wait for completion.' It is distinct from sibling tools like list_jobs, monitor_job_status, and diagnose_job, which cover other phases of the job lifecycle.

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 phrase 'existing Abaqus job' implies this is for already-created jobs rather than job creation, and 'wait for completion' suggests synchronous use. However, it does not explicitly describe when to choose this over monitoring via monitor_job_status or polling manually.

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