SubmitDataServiceApi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'submit' without explaining what this action does (e.g., changes API state, triggers a process, requires approval), whether it's idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise ('提交数据服务API' - 6 Chinese characters) but this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It's front-loaded by default due to its brevity, but fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool correctly.

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 this is a mutation tool (implied by 'submit') with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the result will be. The 100% schema coverage for parameters is insufficient compensation for the lack of functional context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters (ProjectId, ApiId, TenantId) clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional information about parameter meanings, constraints, or relationships. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '提交数据服务API' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'SubmitDataServiceApi' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'submit' means in this context (e.g., submit for approval, submit for execution, submit for publication) or what resource is being acted upon beyond the generic 'data service API'. While it indicates a verb ('submit'), the purpose remains vague without clarifying what submission entails or what happens to the API.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the API must be created first), what state the API should be in, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'PublishDataServiceApi' or 'TestDataServiceApi'. Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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