ecash_confirm_job

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 clearly reports the financial outcome ('98% goes to worker, 2% is burned') and the authorization requirement, which are key side effects and constraints. This goes well beyond a simple 'confirms job' and provides essential transparency for an irreversible monetary action.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value: the payment split, the burn, and the authorization constraint. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully sufficient. It explains the purpose, the key behavioral outcomes, and the access restriction. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 only parameter, jobId, is fully described in the schema ('The ID of the job to confirm'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the schema already provides sufficient semantics. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Confirm job completion'), the resource ('job'), and the downstream effect ('release payment to worker'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ecash_submit_work and ecash_accept_job by specifying the payment split and the authorization constraint, making its unique role unambiguous.

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 this tool (after job completion, only by the job poster) and states a hard prerequisite/constraint: 'Only the job poster can confirm.' It does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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