yearning_submit_order

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, authorization requirements, or error behavior. Given the write nature of the tool, more disclosure about potential impact (e.g., SQL execution risks) would improve transparency. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds a usage recommendation and API endpoint. No unnecessary information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (implied), so return values are covered. However, the description lacks details about what happens after submission (e.g., order ID, validation steps, error handling). Given the complexity of submitting SQL orders, additional context such as required permissions or typical response structure would improve completeness. It is minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., sql, delay, backup). The tool's main description only mentions DDL/DML and recommends sql_check. Since schema coverage is high (descriptions present), the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 it submits SQL work orders (DDL/DML). The verb 'submit' and resource 'SQL orders' are specific. It distinguishes itself by recommending the prerequisite tool yearning_sql_check, differentiating from sibling tools like that one.

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 explicit guidance to call yearning_sql_check before submission. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the tip helps the agent choose the correct sequence. No exclusions or comparisons to other siblings are given, but the context is adequate.

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