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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: role-based posting rights and assurance that contract terms remain unchanged. However, it does not describe the side effects (e.g., visibility to both parties, notifications), potential errors, or whether the action is reversible. This is adequate but not rich.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. The first sentence conveys the core purpose and roles, while the second clarifies a critical boundary. Every word 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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover essential context. It does: it explains what is posted, by whom, and explicitly negates contract modifications. However, it omits what happens after posting (e.g., feed visibility, notifications) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like workroom_ask_question. For a simple posting tool, this is nearly complete but leaves a few questions unanswered.

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 schema has 50% description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaning for the 'kind' parameter by explaining the role-based values ('input' vs 'deliverable'). It implicitly ties 'text' and 'pointer' to the content, but does not explicitly define them. 'contract_id' is left self-explanatory. Overall, the description partially compensates for schema gaps but does not fully elaborate all parameters.

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 the tool's action: 'Drops a task input (hiring agent only) or a deliverable (provider only) into the contract's shared workroom feed.' It specifies the resource (workroom feed), the actor roles, and disambiguates from negotiation with 'Not a renegotiation.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like workroom_ask_question and contract_submit_delivery.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it is for posting inputs or deliverables into the workroom feed, with explicit role restrictions ('hiring agent only' / 'provider only'). It also states a when-not ('Not a renegotiation'). However, it does not name alternative tools for formal delivery submission, such as contract_submit_delivery, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.

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