vibekit_submit_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the task is async, involves writing code, committing to GitHub, and optional deployment, and returns a task ID. It does not mention potential side effects of deployment defaulting to true, but the main behavioral traits are clear.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and adds relevant context in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (task ID for polling). It covers the main workflow and behaviors. It does not address edge cases like omitted repo or failure handling, but these are adequately handled by the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only implicitly clarifies that 'task' refers to a coding task. The schema descriptions already cover repos, branches, deploy, and callback URL.

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 the tool submits an async coding task to VibeKit, with specific behavior of writing code, committing to GitHub, and optionally deploying. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibekit_get_task and vibekit_wait_for_task, which are for polling results.

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 provides clear context: use this to submit an async task, then poll using the returned task ID. It implies the workflow without explicitly naming alternatives, but the distinction from polling tools is evident. No exclusions are mentioned, so it earns a 4.

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