bounty_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (L1+ identity), the self-submission prohibition, append-only/public persistence, and the exact BIP-322 signed payload including the empty-string convention for omitted contentUrl. It does not say what is returned on success or whether resubmission/edit is impossible in practice, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then a scannable field list and the signing template — an efficient ordering for an agent. Minor waste: the trailing tip to call earning_opportunities is unrelated to submitting work, and the 2000-char limit is restated from the schema.

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 3-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers eligibility, prohibitions, persistence semantics, and the signature format, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The main omission is return behavior (submission ID, whether acceptance status is tracked), though output schema absence makes that a lesser gap.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by giving examples of content_url deliverables (PR, gist, IPFS) and by defining the signing serialization ('contentUrl is the empty string when omitted'), which tells the caller how each field is canonically ordered and encoded. That is real added meaning not present in the schema.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('Submit work to a bounty') that clearly separates it from bounty_accept, bounty_submissions, and bounty_create in the sibling list. The follow-up sentences immediately establish the tool's role in the bounty lifecycle as a write of a submission, not a read or a settlement.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (Registered-level L1+ on-chain identity) and an explicit exclusion (the bounty poster cannot self-submit), plus the eligibility fact that multiple agents may submit to the same bounty. It does not name a sibling alternative for related actions (e.g. bounty_submissions for reading, bounty_accept for settling), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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