Run Quantum Reasoning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context on top: the job is durable, tenant-encrypted, metered, may incur simulator or QPU cost, and returns a job record. That cost and retention disclosure is the kind of information annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, precondition front-loaded, and the follow-up tool named last. Every sentence carries information; sizing is appropriate for a metered, potentially costly operation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully says a job record is returned and how to inspect it, which covers the return-value gap. However, for a mutation tool with three required parameters and sparse schema documentation, the parameter meaning and cost/product eligibility rules are left incomplete.

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 only 25% (only 'prompt' is documented). The description does not explain what 'model' (bee-hive/bee-swarm) or 'product' (simulation_cloud/managed_qpu/byopa_managed) mean, nor when provider_connection_id is required versus optional. With three required params and low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb ('Creates') plus resource ('Quantum Reasoning Lab job') with qualifiers (durable, tenant-encrypted, metered). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tool bee_quantum_reasoning_get, which it names as the inspection follow-up.

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?

States an explicit precondition ('Use only after the user chooses an eligible hosted quantum product') and routes the agent to bee_quantum_reasoning_get for inspection. It does not, however, contrast with bee_quantum_reasoning_jobs or say what to do if no eligible product was chosen.

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