solver_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that this is a mutating POST operation and reveals the non-obvious idempotency contract (unique ID transmitted as the Idempotency-Key header, the call being impossible without it). It does not cover duplicate-key behavior, cost implications, or post-submission lifecycle, but the most critical behavioral trait is well disclosed.

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 and endpoint before the prerequisite. The closing clause 'an MCP client cannot construct a valid call without it' slightly repeats what 'Requires' already conveys and duplicates the schema's required flag, but the overall structure is economical and well-ordered.

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?

This is a complex tool — 5 parameters, deeply nested objects, 4 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema — yet the description leaves major gaps: the meanings of policy and verifier_id, what the call returns (execution ID/receipt?), and the follow-up workflow (how to poll or retrieve results via siblings) are all unaddressed. The idempotency gotcha is handled, but the surrounding context an agent needs to invoke this correctly is largely missing.

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 only 20% — four of five parameters (task, policy, compose, verifier_id) have no semantic explanation in the schema or the description. The description clarifies only idempotency_key, whose tricky header semantics genuinely needed it. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, and it largely does not: what constitutes a policy, what verifier_id refers to, and what compose:'auto' means all remain opaque.

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 and resource — 'Submit a task for governed execution' — backed by the explicit endpoint (POST /v1/executions). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like solver_cancel, solver_status, and solver_result, which concern later stages of the lifecycle. An agent can identify this as the task-launching tool without opening the schema.

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 establishes the tool as the submission entry point for governed executions and stresses the hard prerequisite of a unique idempotency key. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling or exclusion. Usage is implied by the verb and endpoint rather than stated.

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