Slurm Submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: idempotent submission keyed on the request UUID, plus retry semantics. It says nothing about permissions/auth, what happens on a duplicate UUID, queue/partition behavior, or the returned job identifier, so the mutation's effects remain largely opaque.

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?

A single semicolon-linked sentence with the core action front-loaded and the idempotency/retry caveat following. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three required params, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what project_id is, what happens to the existing job record, or what the call returns after success.

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% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: 'request UUID on retries' explains request_id's role, and 'batch script' loosely implies script_path. project_id is never addressed, and there is no format or constraint detail for script_path (path relative to what?).

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 resource ('batch script'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like slurm_get_job, slurm_list_jobs, or slurm_read_log. However, it does not explicitly contrast with slurm_preview (the likely validation step) despite invoking 'validated', so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase 'validated batch script' implies the script must pass validation (presumably slurm_preview) before submission, and 'reuse the request UUID on retries' gives retry guidance. But neither is framed as an explicit when-to-use vs. alternative statement, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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