submit_engineering_job

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), closed-world, and non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond that: the job is persistent and asynchronous, and the calling session does not own execution, implying results must be retrieved elsewhere. It stops short of naming the polling/retrieval tool or stating whether submission is cancelable or idempotent.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action leads and the execution-ownership caveat follows. Appropriately sized for a description, though a tool of this complexity arguably needs a little more substance rather than less.

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?

For a complex, async, mutation tool with a large undocumented nested schema and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: what operation values mean, what the call returns (job id?), and how to follow up. The annotations plus two sentences are not sufficient for an agent to call this correctly without reading external docs.

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%, and the single 'request' parameter is a deeply nested JobRequest with ~20 fields, a 13-value operation enum, and several option sub-objects — none of which are described anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (queue) and resource (persistent job) and adds who executes it ('workbench or standalone worker'). It does not differentiate this generic submitter from the many specific siblings (submit_pcb_repair, submit_pcb_completion, submit_pcb_clearance_repair), so an agent cannot tell when to prefer it over them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the project/revision must exist first), and no routing to the specialized submit_* siblings. 'This MCP session never owns its execution' is a behavioral note, not a usage rule.

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