jobs_submit

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

The description mentions the SDK supplies an idempotency header, implying the operation is safe to retry. It also states the request must match a specific shape, hinting at validation. However, there are no annotations, and the description does not cover permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The idempotency hint is useful but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides necessary constraints. No redundant or irrelevant information is included.

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 has nested objects and no output schema. The description does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., whether a job ID is returned) or how to handle errors. Given there is a jobs_get sibling, one might infer the submission returns an ID, but this is not stated. The description could be more complete by hinting at the return value or next steps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description only restates the required fields without adding new meaning. The schema already explains job_type, input, max_cost_usd_micros, and callback_url thoroughly. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond what is already in the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Submit a fixed platform-managed job.' It also outlines the required API shape. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like invoke_function or jobs_cancel, though the name and context make it fairly clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., invoke_function, jobs_cancel). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints. The description only states the request must match a specific shape, but does not explain the broader usage scenario.

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