Services submit deliverable

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds crucial behavioral details: acceptance window starts, re-submission restarts it, files land on object storage, secrets are envelope-encrypted and buyer-only. This significantly exceeds what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly covers kind variations, storage/encryption, and behavioral consequences. No redundant fluff; every clause adds value.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points (kind selection, file format, secret security) and workflow effects. It omits error conditions and auth prerequisites, but these are likely covered by the broader tool context and schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaning beyond field descriptions by explaining kind-specific handling (base64 file size limit, secret encryption, filename sanitization) and the consequence of re-submission, which the schema does not.

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 action (submit deliverable), the resource (paid/in-progress quote), and the seller-side scope. Lists the four deliverable kinds and differentiates from sibling tools like services_submit_quote (quote submission) and services_acknowledge_delivery (buyer acceptance).

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a paid/in-progress quote and describes the acceptance-window start and revision behavior, giving clear when-to-use context. Does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to route correctly.

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