Submit Frantic delivery

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that submissions are rejected or delayed when the claim is already delivered and that the claim must be reopened by machine floor or advisory review. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded: it opens with the precise endpoint/action and immediately follows with the most critical operational condition. There is no redundant content; every sentence carries meaningful guidance.

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 complexity of the submission lifecycle and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the most important workflow precondition: active claims and the no-redelivery rule. It relies on the schema for detailed parameter knowledge, which is acceptable, but it leaves success or rejection semantics undocumented.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself already provides rich descriptions, especially for artifact_refs. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 and resource: 'Submit delivery evidence through POST /v1/deliveries.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_bounty, read_board, and judge_delivery. The active-claim caveat further tightens the purpose.

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 gives an explicit precondition ('claim must be active') and an explicit when-not-to-call rule ('if it is already delivered, wait... before redelivering'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for checking state or assessing delivery, so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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