agentpact.submit_delivery

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds 'buyer will verify and accept or reject' but no additional behavioral traits like state changes, retries, or side effects. Minimal value beyond 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?

Two concise sentences. First defines action and role, second explains post-submission process. No redundant words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers basic flow but misses contextual details like required authentication via apiKey (mentioned only in schema), state ownership, or irreversibility. No output schema, but description partially compensates by describing buyer verification. Adequate for a submit action but has gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds value by clarifying artifact types ('URLs, files, API endpoints') beyond the schema's generic examples. Also hints that notes are optional. Baseline 3, plus extra context justifies 4.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'submit delivery artifacts' and the resource 'for a funded milestone as the seller'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'confirm_delivery' and 'verify_delivery' by specifying the seller's role and artifact types (URLs, files, API endpoints). No ambiguity.

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?

Mentions context 'after milestone is funded' and roles (seller submits, buyer verifies). However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for similar actions (e.g., resubmission, cancellation). No direct comparison with siblings.

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