Submit Governed Job

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that BailingHub applies configured reach, risk, approval-intent, rate-limit, and audit controls, and that the downstream system still performs final authorization. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the destructive/idempotent hints.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action, then explain governance behavior. Every sentence contributes new information with no redundant wording.

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 description covers the governance pipeline and final-authorization caveat, and sibling tools suggest follow-up retrieval. It does not describe return values or error/rejection behavior, but the provided annotations and schema are rich enough for a submit action.

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 100% and parameter descriptions already explain request_id as an idempotency key and input as untrusted task text. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific action ('Submit a business-system action') and resource/route ('operator-configured BailingHub route'), clearly distinguishing from the sibling get/wait tools. It communicates the submission nature and governance context in one sentence.

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 implies usage for submitting a governed business action but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_governed_job or wait_for_governed_job, nor mention when not to use it. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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