Submit exact reviewed generation batch

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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: sequential submission, stop-on-first-failure, what is reported (known request IDs, failed and unattempted indices), and critically what is NOT provided (no polling, retries, rollback, continuation, or budget guarantee). The destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations are consistent with this and the description adds the operational failure model an agent needs before committing paid work.

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 action and the guardrail before the failure model, and no sentence is filler. The telegraphic, semicolon-heavy phrasing packs a lot into two sentences at some cost to readability.

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 destructive, non-idempotent paid submission with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: validation gate, sequencing, failure handling, and result reporting. Remaining gaps are minor, such as what a successful response contains beyond request IDs.

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% and the description adds meaning on top: tasks are ordered 1-10 and explicitly 'not a cost or output-count budget', and review_sha256 is tied to the refuse-if-changed validation gate. It does not explain the account or confirm parameters, which the schema handles only thinly.

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 and resource ('Confirmed one-to-ten async jobs', 'paid submission') and the batch nature is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling preview_generation_batch or contrast itself with submit_job, so the agent must infer the review-then-submit relationship from 'Confirmed' and 'refuse changed hash'.

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?

Gives a clear precondition chain: refetch current schemas and unit quotes, validate all, refuse changed hash, and only then make the first paid submission. This is strong when-to-use guidance, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit 'do not use this for previewing' exclusion.

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