neurover_submit_generation

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world and non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial facts the annotations omit: this call spends money/credits, it must only be issued once, and an ambiguous response must not be re-submitted. It does not say how billing is charged or what happens to the token after use, so it stops short of a 5.

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 short clauses, step label and preconditions front-loaded, no filler. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient but slightly reduces readability for an agent parsing constraints.

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?

Covers cost, sequencing, and the no-retry rule, which is the core risk surface. However, with no output schema and no description of return values, an agent is not told what identity a successful submission returns nor how that connects to wait_generation, and the 'details' parameter remains unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well on 'token' (origin in the three prepare_* tools) and adds a real constraint on maxCredits relative to estimatedCredits, but the boolean 'details' parameter is never mentioned anywhere and its effect is completely undocumented.

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 action ('платный запуск токена') and the exact resources it consumes (tokens from prepare_generation / prepare_run / prepare_prompt_enhancement), which clearly separates it from those prepare siblings. It loses a point only because 'запуск токена' is jargon-heavy and the underlying object (a generation job) is never named plainly.

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 explicit when-to-use ('только когда пользователь попросил'), a hard precondition (maxCredits ≥ estimatedCredits), a call-count restriction ('один раз'), and a refusal to retry ('не повторять при неясном результате — сначала wait_generation'), naming the alternative tool to use instead.

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