nayori_apply_to_job

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that applying moves no funds, returns a txid, and broadcast isn't confirmation. It also mentions validation conditions (refusal on stale reads). This adds useful behavioral insight without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The 'WRITE (mainnet)' prefix immediately signals intent, followed by the action, conditions, note format, and return behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately 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?

For a write operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: preconditions, side effects, return type, and broadcast caveat. It does not explain the asset parameter's meaning or enumerate possible error scenarios, but given the minimal schema and annotations, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in 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 coverage is only 25% (only 'note' has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining that agentId must be an active registry agent whose wallet is the signer, and implies that jobId corresponds to an open/funded job. However, the 'asset' parameter is not explained beyond the enum values, and the description doesn't clarify the relationship between jobId and agentId beyond those hints. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but is not exhaustive.

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 action: 'Apply to a Nayori job as a provider' and specifies the target ('through job-applications-v1'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like nayori_register_agent (registration) and nayori_submit_work (submission), and the WRITE prefix clarifies its mutating nature. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit preconditions: 'Refused unless a fresh read shows the job is open or funded with no provider' and 'agentId is an active registry agent whose wallet is the signer.' It also clarifies that this tool does not move funds and that the client must still assign the provider, which implies when a different tool (nayori_client_assign_provider) would be needed. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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