Gibwork Submit Work

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling a write operation. The description adds caution to confirm details before writing, aligning with annotations. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds limited new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 four sentences: clear verb+resource, SAP MCP context, usage guidance, and follow-up suggestion. The second sentence about SAP MCP context is redundant with annotations but not excessive. The description is mostly concise and front-loaded.

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 is simple (submit work with wallet, bountyId, submissionUrl, notes). The description does not explain what happens on success/failure or handle invalid inputs. However, an output schema exists (as per context signals), so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is adequate but could be more complete.

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 100%, and each parameter has a description in the schema (e.g., wallet: 'Solana public key (base58)'). The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions 'Confirm scope, payout, recipient, and deliverable evidence' but does not map these to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'Submit completed work for a Gib Work bounty,' specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gibwork_createBounty by focusing on submission. However, it also mentions 'Use for bounty creation, listing, and work submission,' which broadens the scope unnecessarily, reducing clarity slightly.

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 advises confirming scope, payout, recipient, and deliverable before writes, and suggests using SAP attestation or feedback tools after completion for reputation recording. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, but it provides some context for usage.

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