submit_jobSubmit a payload as a persistent creative job; query action_schema first to build valid fields, use a required idempotencyKey for retries, and verify upstream status after COMPLETED.
先用 action_schema 查询字段，再将 payload 提交为持久化 job。idempotencyKey 必填；超时复用原 key 和相同 payload。写入默认 dryRun=true，真实写入满足后端实时政策。COMPLETED 仅表示调用返回，须检查上游与素材状态；UNKNOWN 不得重新生成。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, open-world), it discloses critical behavior: writes default to dryRun=true and real writes must satisfy backend live policy, COMPLETED only means the call returned, and UNKNOWN must not be regenerated. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the 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 prerequisite is front-loaded, and each clause (idempotency, dryRun, status semantics) carries distinct information with no padding. It is dense but appropriate for a write tool with several failure modes.
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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, it covers the essentials: setup, idempotency, dry-run defaults, and result semantics. It could go further by naming get_job as the way to check job status and hinting at the payload's action field.
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%, so the description must explain the two parameters; it only says idempotencyKey is required (already implied by the schema's required list) and skips the nested payload shape entirely beyond delegating to action_schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap, but not fully.
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 gives a concrete verb+resource: it submits a payload as a persistent job, after resolving fields via action_schema. It is easy to distinguish from the read-only siblings (get_job, list_jobs), but it never explains how it differs from submit_job_json, the closest sibling.
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?
It states an explicit prerequisite ('先用 action_schema 查询字段') and a clear precondition for retries (reuse the original idempotencyKey with the same payload on timeout). The only gap is that it does not say when to choose this tool over submit_job_json.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.