freelance_submit_milestone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state change, the role prerequisite, and the social consequence ('puts the client on the spot'). It also provides an ethical caution. This is strong coverage, though it could mention whether the action is reversible or triggers notifications.

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, front-loaded with the action and state change, followed by role and caution. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, role requirement, and behavioral consequence. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call it, though it could hint at post-submission workflow (e.g., client approval) for extra context.

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 100% with both parameters described as 'The contract id.' and 'The milestone id.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it remains at the baseline 3.

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: 'Hand a milestone in for review, moving it PENDING -> SUBMITTED.' It identifies the resource (milestone), the action (submit), and the state transition, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like approve_milestone or fund_milestone.

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 specifies the freelancer lane and the requirement that the account must be the contract's freelancer. It also warns against calling without the freelancer's say-so, which is a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use scenario beyond the role restriction.

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