ecash_submit_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds a non-obvious auth requirement ('Requires ECASH_PRIVATE_KEY'), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether submission is final, reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., payment release), leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases or irrelevant details.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the prerequisite (accepted job), and the auth requirement. It lacks explicit information about the response or post-submission behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('jobId' and 'result'), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and clearly identifies the resource ('completed work for a job you accepted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ecash_accept_job, ecash_confirm_job, and ecash_create_job by focusing on the post-acceptance submission action.

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 phrase 'for a job you accepted' provides clear context that this tool is used after acceptance and completion of a job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool at the right step.

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