nayori_provider_submit_committed

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

Beyond the annotations (write, non-read-only), the description discloses important behaviors: it reads the job fresh, refuses unless on-chain conditions hold, computes commitments via @perkos/agent-sdk, emits a specific 36-byte deliverable, and warns that 'broadcast is not confirmation.' This is rich behavioral context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: protocol/network, role, purpose, behavioral checks, output format, parameter semantics, comparison to a sibling, and a caveat. It is front-loaded with 'WRITE (mainnet)' and the core action, and contains no filler.

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 tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains refusal conditions, output shape, return value (txid), and the broadcast caveat. It also references the related evaluation tool, giving the agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates by explaining the evidence items format, the hashing role of acceptanceCriteria, and the instruction to keep exact inputs for nayori_evaluation_request. It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, though asset and jobId still rely mostly on the schema definition.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'submit work for an evaluable job with an evidence commitment (escrow submit-work).' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling nayori_submit_work by naming the exact condition for choosing this tool, so an agent can identify its purpose unambiguously.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this instead of nayori_submit_work when the job description ends with nayori-criteria-v1:.' It also states the prerequisites for a successful call (criteria hash match, assigned provider, status 1), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and when it will refuse.

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