commit_collateral

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that collateral is locked, contract moves to Active status, asset type is read from chain, and disputes may forfeit collateral. These are critical behavioral traits beyond basic mutation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential warnings 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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and the description covers prerequisites, state changes, risk warnings, and return behavior. No output schema details needed since description mentions confirmation/error. Complete for an AI agent to invoke 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 schema has no property descriptions, so the description fully compensates by defining job_id as the contract ID and collateral as 'Amount in groth to lock as collateral' with typical value and dispute consequence. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Commit collateral to an Open Idios contract as the worker (Bob).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the worker role distinguishes it from requester-side actions like create_contract_a or submit_delivery.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('You must be the worker whose pubkey was used to create the contract') and clear when-not-to-use guidance ('Check the contract's expiry_block... Do not commit unless the remaining time is enough to deliver'). Also notes the consequence of forfeiture.

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