submit_structure

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses async behavior ('Returns a job immediately'), the polling requirement, coordinate-space semantics, the eye_height default of 1.62, and automatic extraction of embedded view pads. This is substantial transparency for a mutation-like tool.

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 four information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and async return behavior, then the supporting views JSON format. There is no filler, repetition, or ambiguity caused by loose 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the critical operational loop: submit, receive a job, and poll job_status. It also supplies the views JSON layout and defaults. The main gap is the unexplained required path parameter, which prevents full completeness.

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 thoroughly explains views_path through the 'Optional views JSON' format and coordinate details, but it never describes the required path parameter—what it points to or what formats are accepted. One parameter gets rich semantics, while the other remains opaque.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Replace the active structure') and intended outcome ('automatically capture all angles'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like validate_structure and recapture_views, and 'Returns a job immediately' further frames it as an asynchronous submission operation.

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 establishes a clear workflow: submit the structure, receive a job, then 'Poll job_status until complete or failed.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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