submit_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scheduling semantics (critical-path priority, file-conflict reservations, read/write overlap behavior) and that it returns an analysis plus a workflow URI. But it omits that this spawns workers that write files (potential destructive surface), how permission_mode governs execution, and any auth/quota considerations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scheduling guarantee. No filler, though the return-value sentence is thin relative to its length.

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?

For a 7-parameter orchestration tool with nested task objects, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It neither explains the permission modes nor the dependency injection/timeout semantics an agent would need to call this safely and 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 only 29%, so the description must compensate — but it only clarifies write_paths (via 'disjoint write_paths') and roughly the return value. Parameters like name, tasks structure, effort, permission_mode, and timeout_sec get no meaning from the description, leaving most of a 7-parameter surface unexplained.

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 (Queue) and resource (DAG/workflow), and distinguishes itself semantically from submit_job and submit_batch by emphasizing DAG scheduling, critical-path priority, and file-conflict reservations. The sibling differentiation is implicit rather than naming alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 real usage context — independent tasks with disjoint write_paths run in parallel — which tells the agent how to structure a call for concurrency. However, it never says when to choose submit_workflow over submit_job, submit_batch, or analyze_workflow, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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