submit_provider_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions that the job is 'provider-managed' and returns a reference, implying asynchronous behavior, but does not disclose specifics like authentication requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or side effects (e.g., costs). This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool that integrates with external services.

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 concise and well-structured. It begins with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of arguments with explanations, and ends with the return value and follow-up suggestion. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input parameters and the return value (a job reference). It mentions a follow-up tool for tracking. However, it does not address prerequisites (e.g., need a connected provider account), error conditions, or the async nature of the operation. These omissions leave some contextual gaps.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'file_url' as a public URL, 'material' with examples, and 'printer_id' with the auto-assignment behavior. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates adequately. However, it lacks details on valid URL formats, material list restrictions, or printer ID format, preventing a perfect score.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit a print job') and the context ('through a connected provider integration'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying that it works with a provider integration, as opposed to direct submission. The verb 'submit' and resource 'print job' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context for the optional printer_id parameter ('If omitted, provider auto-assigns'), giving some guidance on when to use it. It also directs users to use 'provider_job_status' for tracking, indicating a follow-up step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_job', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., having a connected provider account). There is no exclusionary guidance.

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