federation_submit

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: server-side validation of size/types/control-chars, that markers must NOT be added (assemble does the check), and that a stale claim_token causes rejection. It stops short of describing success behavior, idempotency, or the response shape.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, using capitalization to emphasize RAW and the marker prohibition. No filler, though the telegraphic style and jargon make it slightly harder to parse than a plain statement would be.

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 5-required-param, nested-object mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the submission semantics and validation/rejection behavior but omits the identity params (task_id, worker_id) and any success/return expectations, leaving clear gaps.

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 0% and all 5 params are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explains candidate structure and worker_model, and mentions claim_token's stale-rejection semantics, but leaves task_id and worker_id entirely unexplained.

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 and resource: the executor ('Исполнитель') submits a RAW candidate. It names the candidate shape {argument, quotes:[{text}]} and ties the action to the sibling concepts of claim_token and assemble, so an agent can place it in the federation workflow.

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 implies the submit must follow a claim and warns 'stale claim_token → отклонён' and 'маркеры НЕ ставь — сервер сверит на assemble', which is real routing guidance. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with siblings like federation_assemble or federation_claim or states the full preconditions for calling it.

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