submit_deliverable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any consequences of submission (e.g., finality, triggering review, task closure), prerequisites, or side effects. It merely restates the purpose, offering zero transparency into the tool's operational behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler, earning points for brevity. However, it is under-specified: while it is short, it omits critical details that a longer description should include. Thus, it is concise but not effectively structured to be helpful.

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 has six required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. It offers only a basic statement of purpose, leaving unclear what happens after submission, what makes a submission valid, or how evidence ties in operationally. This is inadequate for a consequential submission tool.

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?

The input schema already describes all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'tied to evidence' gives slight extra context by suggesting that evidence_packet_ids are central, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameters or their relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear action ('Submit') and a specific object ('your final output tied to evidence'), which conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like submit_evidence or complete_task, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides only a role hint ('[ANALYST/BUILDER]') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to submit evidence vs. a deliverable, or when a task is complete). There are no exclusions or alternative references, so usage guidance is largely absent.

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