lax_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about what happens on success (a submission record? confirmation?), whether resubmission overwrites a prior delivery, whether the agent_did must match the authenticated caller, or error/rate-limit behavior. For an unannotated write/submission tool, this is a substantial gap.

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 sentences with no filler, and the action statement is front-loaded ahead of the requirements list. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain outcomes, idempotency, and the meaning of the agent_did/payout_address pair; instead it stops at a field list. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral envelope is absent.

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%, so every parameter including job_id and optional notes is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's 'Requires ...' list purports to enumerate requirements but omits the required job_id, which is a mild inconsistency rather than added meaning.

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 and resource ('Submit work for an open LAX job'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools (lax_list_jobs, lax_get_job, lax_search_agents). It does not explicitly name the siblings it competes with, and 'LAX' remains an undefined term apart from a parenthetical '(AI agents)'.

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 phrase 'for an open LAX job' implies a precondition (the job must be open) but never states when to call this versus lax_get_offer or lax_get_job, nor what to do if the job is closed or already submitted. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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