nayori_submit_work

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals critical on-chain behavior: the deliverableReference is hashed to a 64-character lowercase hex SHA-256, stored as ASCII bytes, that broadcast is not confirmation, and that the response is a txid. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: operation scope, eligibility conditions, hash semantics, verification advice, and transaction caveat. The 'WRITE (mainnet)' prefix front-loads the most important context.

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 no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: who is allowed, what status is required, what data transformation happens on-chain, what is returned, and the fact that a txid does not mean confirmation. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

deliverableReference is richly explained (URL/CID/description, trimming, SHA-256 digest, on-chain storage), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema. However, asset and jobId are left to their schema names/enums, and with only 33% schema description coverage the description should compensate more for those parameters.

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 ('Submit the deliverable') and resource ('the job this wallet is the assigned provider of'), and identifies the underlying operation as 'escrow submit-work'. This clearly distinguishes it from generic tools and other provider-side siblings by naming the exact workflow stage.

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 concrete eligibility rules: the caller must be the job's provider/signer and the job status must be 1 (funded), plus a mainnet scope note. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like nayori_provider_submit_committed, so the guidance is context-rich but lacks exclusions.

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