lax_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the sensitive data flow (contact, payout address, artifact URL sent to a registry) and the authorization prerequisite, which is meaningful. But it omits idempotency, reversibility, error/failure behavior, and what a successful submission returns—gaps that matter for a write operation with 6 required parameters.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the authorization prerequisite immediately following. No wasted text, though it could have spent a few more words on the uncovered parameters rather than staying this terse.

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 mutation tool with 6 required params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the action and one precondition but does not describe the response, failure modes, or the semantics of most inputs, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it correctly in edge cases.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate—but it only glosses three of them (contact, payout_address as 'payout address', repo_or_patch_url as 'artifact URL'). It says nothing about job_id, builder, agent_did, or notes, leaving over half the inputs undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Submit work to a LAX job'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings (lax_list_jobs, lax_get_job, lax_search_agents). It does not name the siblings explicitly, but the action shape is unambiguous enough for an agent to pick 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?

It provides a real prerequisite ('obtain operator authorization first'), which is useful routing context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no exclusions, leaving selection largely implied by the verb.

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