submit_generation

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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it consumes credits, requires an explicit user confirmation step, hard-rejects concurrent tasks on the same node, and returns only a task ID without tracking progress. That last point is important because it tells the agent to poll elsewhere rather than wait.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences covering cost, confirmation requirement, concurrency rejection, and return behavior. Zero filler; the most decision-relevant information (costs credits, needs confirmation) comes first.

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 destructive, non-idempotent submission tool, the description covers cost, the mandatory confirmation gate, the rejection rule, and the fact that progress is not tracked (implying the agent must poll get_task). An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required of the description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description supplies the two-step confirmation narrative that gives confirm_code its meaning (a code returned by a prior call that the user must approve). It does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 states a specific verb+resource (提交生成任务 = submit generation task) and adds the cost signal (花积分), so an agent knows at a glance this initiates a paid render. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling creation tools like create_video_node or create_final_video, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: every submission requires per-user confirmation through a dialog, and submission is rejected outright if a task is already running on the node. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for any scenario, so 4 rather than 5.

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