submit_quantum_experiment

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive behavior. The description adds specific context: it creates an experiment, consumes Tianyan cloud resources, may create duplicate tasks with repeated calls, and requires user confirmation. This goes beyond the annotations by detailing the exact side effects and the mandatory confirmation step, with no contradiction.

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 compact at four sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds essential context about side effects, duplicate risk, and user confirmation. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the experiment creation, resource consumption, duplicate risk, and required confirmation. However, it omits any mention of the optional 'allow_hardware' parameter and the expected format of the 'circuit' string, which are relevant for correctly exercising the tool.

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. It mentions only some parameters indirectly: 'backend' (likely computer_code), 'circuit name' (likely name), 'lab_name', and 'shots'. It does not explain the 'circuit' parameter, the 'allow_hardware' boolean, or the exact meaning of 'computer_code'. This partial coverage leaves significant gaps for correct parameter usage.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Submit and run one QCIS experiment circuit.' This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_available_quantum_backends and get_quantum_backend, which deal with backends rather than experiments.

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 a clear prerequisite: the host must show the backend, circuit name, lab name, and shots to the user and obtain confirmation before submitting. It also warns that repeated calls may create duplicate tasks, offering guidance against redundant use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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