Services acknowledge delivery

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

The description thoroughly discloses side effects: the acknowledgement is recorded immediately, the held payout releases based on settlement timing, and the status remains 'delivered' until funds settle. It also explains the default auto-release behavior, providing clear transparency about state changes and timing.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for the action, one for the consequences. No redundant or irrelevant detail, and the information is presented logically without fluff.

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 it is a single action with side effects, the description covers the primary outcome, the conditional funding release, and the default behavior if not invoked. It does not mention errors or response structure, but the absence of an output schema makes that acceptable. The context is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and act.

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% and the parameter description already clearly states 'UUID of the delivered quote thread to accept.' The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond restating 'delivered quote', so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Explicitly accept the deliverable on a delivered quote.' The verb 'accept' and resource 'deliverable' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from related tools like services_accept_quote (accepting a quote before work) and services_submit_deliverable (seller submission).

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 implies when to use it: when a quote has been delivered and you want to accept it. It explains the consequence of not using it (auto-release after 7 days), which signals the usage condition. It does not explicitly contrast with reject or other alternatives, but the meaning is clear enough.

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