Submit input with permit

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds context about advancing on-chain lifecycle and requiring permissions. However, it does not detail potential side effects beyond advancing lifecycle.

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 concise sentences plus a scope note, front-loaded with main action. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return values or error handling. Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects), more detail on post-submission behavior would be beneficial.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds context by linking parameters to agreement JSON and explaining the permit structure beyond schema descriptions.

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 verb 'submit' and the resource 'signed input to a deployed agreement', and mentions advancing on-chain lifecycle. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_input_typed_data by indicating it as a prerequisite.

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?

Explicitly states conditions for use (input ID and values must match agreement JSON, signer must be allowed), provides alternative action (call prepare_input_typed_data), and specifies required scope (agreements.write).

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