Submit Code

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the tool is already known to be a write/mutation operation. The description adds that it returns a persistent receipt rather than a promise, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, execution semantics, or whether results are durable beyond the receipt.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and key behavioral differentiator. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is too sparse for a 5-parameter execution tool with several siblings. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus execute_code or run_cached_code, what 'persistent receipt' means for the agent, and how idempotency/input_schema relate. The output schema covers return shape, but the tool's role in the workflow is underspecified.

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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('execution'), and adds a distinguishing note about returning a persistent receipt. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like execute_code or run_cached_code, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'not an MCP Tasks promise' hints at a use case for persistent results but does not name conditions or sibling tools. An agent would have to infer when to choose this over execute_code or run_cached_code.

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