submit_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that the tool returns immediately with a run_id, indicating asynchronous behavior. However, it provides no details about failure modes, permissions, or what happens during validation failure.

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 compact sentences deliver the essential behavior and return value. The information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two string parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, the lack of parameter clarification and failure behavior leaves some gaps for a critical submission tool.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only implicitly covers 'manifest' by saying 'Validate a manifest,' leaving 'repository' entirely unspecified. The description adds minimal value over the raw parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a manifest and queue a run.' This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_plan (validation only) and get_run (retrieval).

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 description implies the tool is used to submit a plan for execution, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over validate_plan or other siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implied.

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