submit_sequence

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by explaining the async contract ('Returns a job ID that can be used to check status and retrieve results'), which tells the agent this is a long-running job requiring polling via check_job_status/wait_for_job. However, it says nothing about execution time, antiSMASH version, network/rate-limit behavior, or what happens on failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the input constraint, then the return contract. No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating that a job ID is returned, which is the key thing an agent needs to chain into check_job_status. Missing only secondary operational detail (expected runtime, failure modes) for a job-submission tool with a fully covered schema.

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 100%, so every parameter (email, gff3_file, strictness, server_type, sequence_file, sideload_file, extra_features) is already documented in the schema, including enum semantics. The description's file-format mention duplicates the sequence_file schema text and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a nucleotide sequence file to antiSMASH') and names the analysis domain (secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters). It is clearly distinguishable from list_extra_features, check_job_status, or download_results, but it never names submit_ncbi, the closest sibling, so the file-vs-accession distinction is left implicit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. Given a sibling submit_ncbi exists, the agent gets no statement like 'use this when you have a local file; use submit_ncbi when you have an accession.' The format note (GenBank/EMBL/FASTA) is a constraint, not routing guidance.

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