agirails_deliver

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

Annotations are neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds critical behavioral context: executing the returned snippet triggers the dispute window. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing a side effect.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose and state transition; the second adds the critical side effect. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, side effects, and deliverable hints. It does not detail the return format of the snippet, but the tool's purpose (generating code) is clear. Additional information about how to execute the snippet would improve completeness, but it is already adequate.

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 schema covers txId and deliverable with descriptions, and network with an enum. The tool description adds examples for the deliverable parameter ('result, CID, URL, or summary'), providing extra meaning beyond the schema. Parameter coverage is 67%, and the description compensates well.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a TypeScript snippet to mark a transaction as delivered, specifying the state transition (IN_PROGRESS → DELIVERED) and what the deliverable includes (result, CID, URL, or summary). This differentiates it from sibling tools like agirails_dispute or agirails_settle.

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 is tailored for providers delivering a service, but does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or compare to alternatives. It provides clear context: running the code triggers the requester dispute window, which is useful for decision-making.

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