Arsenkin: submit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the cost model ('spends Arsenkin limits (see estimate)') and the non-blocking return behavior ('returns job_id without waiting'). It does not elaborate on the irreversibility implied by destructiveHint, which keeps it 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?

Three tightly-packed sentences lead with the action and result, then the precondition, then the cost and dependency. No filler; every clause conveys operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description still names the job_id return. The approval gating, cost, and polling path are all covered. The remaining gap is the opaque nested `payload` and `profile` arguments, which no field documents.

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% with four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It clarifies where approval_id comes from and hints at cost via estimate, but `profile`, the nested `payload` object, and `idempotency_key` are never explained in prose or schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Queue an approved paid job; returns job_id without waiting'), including the async semantics of the operation. It also implicitly separates this tool from `arsenkin_prepare` (which produces the approval) and `arsenkin_task_status` (which polls the result), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: 'Use only after the user's explicit OK' and 'requires approval_id from `arsenkin_prepare`'. The follow-up action is also named ('poll `arsenkin_task_status`'), so the when-to-use and what-next guidance is complete.

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