submit_job

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context: jobs persist under the active API key's organization and completion is delivered via outbound webhook when callback_url is set. It also discloses the async, long-running nature. Some behavior (error handling, retries) is not covered, but the annotations plus description give a solid safety/effect profile.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler. The main action and usage trigger are front-loaded, parameter details are grouped efficiently, and return/persistence behavior is stated succinctly. 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?

The description covers the essential submission workflow: return type (job_id), polling path (get_job_status), persistence scope, and callback behavior. With no output schema, it still tells the agent what to expect. It doesn't mention cancellation or result retrieval, but those are separately available sibling tools (cancel_job, get_job_result), so this is adequate for the submit action.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it states defaults for objective ('maximize') and n_simulations (1000000), explains variables as '{name, low, high}' objects with one uniform range per variable, and clarifies that callback_url triggers an outbound webhook. It doesn't enumerate other objective values, but the added semantics still substantially exceed what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a long-running async simulation job.' It clearly distinguishes itself from likely synchronous siblings (e.g., simulate) by emphasizing async execution and a job_id/poll workflow. The threshold and callback mention further differentiate it from other job tools.

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?

It gives explicit selection criteria: 'Use for n_simulations > 500,000 or when you need a callback.' This tells an agent when to choose this tool over a synchronous path, though it doesn't name the alternative sibling (e.g., simulate) explicitly. The polling instruction with get_job_status also guides post-submission behavior.

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