Submit a prepared execution plan through its durable backend using plan and request IDs, so duplicate request IDs never create a second local submission.
Submit one prepared execution plan through its configured durable backend; repeated request IDs never create a second local submit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable behavior: repeated request IDs will not create a second local submit (idempotency). However, it says nothing about whether execution is asynchronous, what permissions are required, what happens to the durable backend state on failure, or what the caller receives back.
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?
A single tightly written sentence with the core action front-loaded and the idempotency qualifier appended; there is no filler. It is perhaps slightly dense given the jargon, but every clause carries 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?
For a submit-and-execute tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it omits the required prerequisite (where plan_id comes from), the asynchronous or synchronous nature of the run, and any indication of the returned handle an agent would need to poll or retrieve results.
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 for two undocumented required parameters. It partially does so: 'request ID' implies request_id is an idempotency key, and 'prepared execution plan' ties plan_id to a previously prepared plan, but neither parameter's format, provenance, or constraints are stated.
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 names a specific action (submit) on a specific resource (one prepared execution plan) via a durable backend, which is enough to separate it from siblings like rh_create_workflow or rh_validate_workflow. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, and 'prepared execution plan' is somewhat jargony, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as rh_prepare_generation, rh_validate_workflow, or rh_get_results. The word 'prepared' hints that a plan must exist first, but the agent is left to infer the prerequisite and the ordering of steps from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.