vastu_job_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers the non-obvious parts: batch cap of 1-1000, mandatory idempotency-key retention, and the billing model ('quote is maxCharge', 'only successful items charge', 'no job fee'). What it omits is equally behavioral — that submission is asynchronous and produces a job, and that failures are per-item rather than all-or-nothing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and zero boilerplate. The trade-off is telegraphic fragments ('Quote is maxCharge') that cost a re-read, but nothing is padded.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and billing/idempotency are handled. For a tool this complex — a 3-variant oneOf request with nested item inputs — the description still doesn't explain the submit-then-poll lifecycle or how to handle partial item failures, which is the main thing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it enumerates the three operation kinds and names `idempotencyKey` ('Idempotency-Key') with its retention requirement. It adds nothing about `items`, per-item `id`, `webhookId`, or the `grid`/`plot`/`rooms`/`format` input shapes, leaving the largest part of the schema undocumented in prose.

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 (Submit) and the resource (assessment / plan analysis / report inputs) plus the batch bound of 1-1000, which maps cleanly onto the three `operation` variants in the schema. It does not name any sibling, so an agent can't tell from the description alone whether this or `vastu_generate_plan` / `vastu_operation` is the right entry point.

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 only usage instruction is 'Retain the Idempotency-Key', which is a hygiene rule rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of when to prefer this batch endpoint over `vastu_generate_plan`, nor that follow-up state is read via `vastu_job_status` / `vastu_job_results` — an agent must infer the whole job lifecycle from sibling names.

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