openvsp.batch_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It reveals asynchronous behavior ('returns a durable batch directory immediately'), source preservation, no retry, and per-case private copies—non-obvious traits beyond what the schema shows. It does not mention failure_policy behavior, but the most important behavioral caveats are present.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and constraints; the second routes to sibling tools; the third adds behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 submission tool, the description covers the essential operational facts: immediate durable directory, downstream workflow, source preservation, no retry, and isolation semantics. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The failure_policy default is in the schemaholistic; the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps well to some parameters: 'independent steady cases' → cases, 'CPU and parallel-job limits' → cpu_budget/max_parallel_jobs, and 'edit parameters on a private copy' → parameter_edits. However, geometry_file, output_dir, and failure_policy are not mentioned, leaving notable gaps that the schema (without top-level descriptions) does not fill.

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 ('Submit'), a clear resource ('independent steady cases'), and key constraints ('CPU and parallel-job limits'). The phrase 'durable batch directory' and mention of batch_status/batch_cancel distinguish it from sibling batch_* tools; the batch focus clearly separates it from run_vspaero.

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?

Tells the agent exactly what to do after submission: use batch_status, batch_cancel, batch_resume, and batch_export. It also states 'no automatic retry', which implies the agent must handle retries. It does not explicitly contrast with run_vspaero for single cases, but the batch framing makes the intended use clear.

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