submit_patch_job

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions the job is 'long-running' and 'streamed' and returns an ID immediately, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 18 words that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key characteristics. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Despite a complex 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description only covers high-level functionality. It omits explanations of parameter roles, return structure beyond a job ID, and any behavioral caveats. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 0% description coverage for its 7 parameters, and the tool description provides no explanation of what parameters like 'task', 'file_context', or 'allowed_paths' mean. The agent cannot determine parameter semantics from the description alone, severely hindering correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action ('submit') and resource ('patch job'), adds behavioral details ('long-running', 'streamed', 'returns local job ID immediately'), and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_patch_job or cancel_patch_job.

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?

Description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but no comparisons or exclusion criteria are provided. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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