submit_patch_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'long-running' and 'return immediately,' which conveys async behavior, but fails to state what is returned (e.g., a job ID), how to retrieve results, whether files are modified, or any auth requirements.

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 with no filler, making it very concise. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices needed detail, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description only provides the vague notion of a long-running patch job, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly or understand the job lifecycle.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters. The required fields (task, file_context, allowed_paths) and optional fields (model, constraints, etc.) are completely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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 clearly states the tool submits a long-running patch generation job and returns immediately. The verb 'submit' and resource 'patch generation job' are specific, and the async nature distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_patch or get_patch_result.

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 implies the tool is for long-running patch jobs (vs. presumably synchronous generate_patch) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor how it fits into the job lifecycle with get_patch_job/result or cancel_patch_job.

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