tm_accept_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 0.001 USDC relay fee and the confirm:true requirement, which adds transparency about cost and authorization. However, it does not describe side effects on task state or reversibility, leaving gaps for a mutation operation.

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?

Two sentences that are entirely purposeful: the first states the operation and key constraint, the second lists requirements and cost. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Covers all critical call information: operation, share basis points, requirement for confirm:true, and fee. No output schema exists so return values are not needed. Could elaborate on error conditions or idempotency, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward accept action.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that share basis points sum to 10000 and that winners are in rank order (implied by 'explicit winner specs'). It also emphasizes confirm:true as a mandatory authorization, which enriches the schema's boolean description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Accept') and resource ('winners on a bounty/benchmark task') with explicit detail about share basis points summing to 10000. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tm_reject_submission and tm_submit_work by naming the exact operation and its format.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (accepting winners) and states prerequisites (confirm:true, explicit winner specs), but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or describe when not to use. The requirements guide usage without naming alternatives.

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