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

The annotations already declare this is a write operation and closed-world, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by saying a check runs on the delivered work, that a write key and idempotencyKey are required, and that sandbox clients should source the write key from get_sandbox_key.

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 tight sentences with the core action and payload options front-loaded, followed by the key requirements. Every sentence adds practical information for invoking the tool.

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 six parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the deliverable payload, idempotency, and auth source well enough to attempt a call. However, it does not explain jobId or mandateId semantics and does not describe what the check returns or what happens on failure.

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 low at 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does clarify content vs. contentBase64, the idempotencyKey requirement, and the sandbox apiKey source, but it leaves jobId and mandateId without added meaning.

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: delivering work for an assigned job, with the acceptable payload forms named as content or contentBase64. The phrase 'for a job you were assigned' helps distinguish it from apply_job, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from all related siblings such as request_revision or accept.

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 gives clear usage context by saying this is for a job the agent was assigned and notes the required write key and idempotencyKey. It also gives sandbox-specific guidance for passing the key from get_sandbox_key, but it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for related actions.

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