submit_fit_mmm_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It honestly discloses the central trait — the call returns without blocking and work continues in the background — which is genuinely useful beyond the tool name. But it says nothing about what the call returns (e.g., a job ID), how to track job progress, idempotency semantics, or failure behavior, all of which matter for a submission-style tool.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and the defining async trait. There is a slight redundancy between 'asynchronous' and 'without blocking,' but otherwise every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a job-submission tool.

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 job-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: what the call returns (a job identifier to reference later) and how it connects to the sibling job tools (get_job_status, cancel_job, list_jobs). The complex config object is also left entirely unexplained at the top level, so an agent must open the schema to learn even the minimal call shape.

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 at the parameter level is 0%: neither top-level parameter ('config', 'idempotency_key') has a description, and the tool description adds no parameter information. Since coverage is low, the description needed to compensate — especially because 'config' is a large opaque nested object and 'idempotency_key' is a non-obvious concept — and it 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Submit') with a clear resource ('asynchronous MMM fitting job') and adds a defining behavioral trait (background, non-blocking execution). It implicitly contrasts with the synchronous fit_mmm sibling, but it does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is present yet implicit rather than fully explicit.

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?

The async/background phrasing implies the intended use case: long-running fitting jobs the caller does not want to block on. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention that fit_mmm is the synchronous alternative, and no routing to the job-lifecycle siblings (get_job_status, cancel_job, list_jobs) that clearly exist in the sibling set.

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