Submit a job type this server does not model yet

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

The description discloses non-obvious behavior that annotations do not: unsupported job types can 'quietly do nothing' while spending GPU time, and the call requires confirm: true. It also flags the undocumented-payload risk and recommends a capture-first workflow. It stops short of describing response or return behavior, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 deliberately structured: purpose first, then usage and risk guidance, then a crisp cost-and-confirm warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the important operational warnings are front-loaded.

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 complex, unmodeled-job-type tool with no output schema and only sparse annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, risk, capture workflow, and confirmation requirement. The main gap is that it never says what the response looks like or what a successful submit returns, though this is a minor omission for an escape-hatch endpoint.

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 covers all five parameters in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by constraining job_type semantics ('only imagine and reroll are confirmed') and by framing payload as something whose shape must be observed from the web app rather than guessed. That extra practical context justifies a 4.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send an arbitrary job type to Midjourney's submit endpoint.' It also positions itself as 'the escape hatch' for web-app actions with no named tool, which distinguishes it from siblings like imagine, vary_image, and rerun_job without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when it is appropriate: when the web app can do something this server has no named tool for. It then gives a concrete safety protocol: only 'imagine' and 'reroll' are confirmed, undocumented payloads are risky, capture the real request with midjourney-cli capture before guessing, and pass the same shape. This is clear when-to-use and when-to-be-cautious guidance.

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