Submit exact reviewed generation batch

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

Rich disclosure beyond annotations: refetch schemas/quotes and validate before the first paid request, refuse changed hash, submit sequentially, stop on first failure, report request IDs/failed and unattempted indices. It also explicitly enumerates what does NOT happen (no polling, retries, rollback, continuation, or budget guarantee), which aligns with the destructive/non-idempotent annotations and fills in failure semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Confirmed one-to-ten async jobs'), then failure/validation behavior. Very dense and mostly telegraphic, with a few run-on clauses, but every sentence carries load and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what the agent gets back (known request IDs, failed and unattempted indices), how failures propagate, and the pre-submission validation flow. For a destructive batch-submit tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 75%, so the schema documents most fields. The description still adds cross-parameter meaning: 'refuse changed hash' ties review_sha256 to a gate condition, and 'one-to-ten' plus 'before first paid submission' explain how tasks interact with validation. This is genuine added semantics over the pattern/enum constraints in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: submitting a reviewed async generation batch of one-to-ten jobs. The phrase 'before first paid submission' and 'refuse changed hash' make clear it is the paid execution step following a preview, though it never names preview_generation_batch as the sibling counterpart. An agent can identify the action but must infer the preview relationship.

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?

'Confirmed one-to-ten async jobs' and the confirm field ('Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action') imply the precondition of prior review, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over preview_generation_batch, submit_job, or run_model. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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