lax_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that operator authorization is required, which is genuine behavioral context. But it says nothing about side effects, whether submission is idempotent, what happens to the job record, or any rate/validation limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the exclusions. No redundant filler; the only miss is that brevity comes at the cost of parameter and outcome detail.

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?

A multi-field mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 mostly-undocumented required parameters needs far more. The description omits what a successful submission produces and how the required inputs should be formed.

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 only 14% — just job_id is documented. Six other required parameters (builder, contact, agent_did, payout_address, repo_or_patch_url, notes) get no guidance from the description, and it fails to compensate for the gap. An agent must infer the meaning of most fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submit a repository or patch to a legacy job submission route') and adds explicit negative scoping ('Not a tender bid, payment or PACT delivery'). It doesn't differentiate against the sibling read tools, but the action and target are 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?

The exclusions carve out non-fits ('not a tender bid, payment or PACT delivery') and it flags a prerequisite ('Requires operator-authorized work'). However, it never contrasts with the siblings (lax_get_job, lax_list_jobs, etc.) or states the affirmative conditions that select this tool.

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