dashclaw_work_order_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool validates, guard-gates, and queues the order, and returns work_order_id + status + guard decision. However, it does not explicitly state whether the submission creates a new resource (implied by 'queued'), or mention authorization requirements or idempotency. The lack of annotations and missing details on side effects limit transparency to a 3.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core action and key behavioral notes (validation, guard, queuing). Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical and efficient.

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?

Given 4 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers the submission process, return fields, and guard behavior. It does not explain what happens if parked (e.g., waiting for approval), but the mention of 'guard decision' and the existence of a related tool `dashclaw_wait_for_approval` mitigate this. The description is comprehensive for a submission tool.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that `max_cost_usd` and `timeout_seconds` fall back to type defaults, and that `type` must be a registered work order type. This context goes beyond the schema descriptions, helping the agent understand parameter behavior. A 4 reflects strong addition without being exhaustive.

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 clearly states 'Submit a DashClaw work order' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the nature (typed, budget-capped, governed by policy) and briefly outlines the submission process (validation, guard-gating, queuing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashclaw_invoke or dashclaw_handoff_create, which have different purposes.

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?

The description mentions that the order is 'guard-gated (may be blocked or parked for human approval)' and validated, giving implicit guidance on when it might be blocked. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dashclaw_invoke for direct execution, or dashclaw_handoff_create for handoffs). A 3 reflects adequate but not explicit guidance.

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