copr_submit_build

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

No annotations provided; the description mentions only submission action without disclosing behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects, success/failure indicators). It does not compensate for missing annotations.

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?

Description is very concise (two sentences), but could be better structured by including a brief line about source types. It uses a link for details, which is acceptable.

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?

Given the complexity (discriminator, multiple source types) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results, and leaves critical source selection to an external link.

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%; the description mentions ownername and projectname but does not explain their purpose or format. The complex 'source' parameter with discriminator is omitted entirely, relying on external docs. The sub-schemas have descriptions, but the tool description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 new build') and the resource ('Copr project'), and identifies key parameters (ownername, projectname). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like copr_list_builds or copr_build_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The description lacks context for selection.

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