submit_delivery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It details both modes, mentions off-chain delivery ('The file never touches the blockchain'), and specifies the hash generation method. This goes beyond a simple 'submit' to explain the contract flow.

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 detailed but well-organized, with a clear opening sentence and structured sections for modes, off-chain note, and args. Each sentence adds value, though it is on the longer side. It is not verbose given the complexity.

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 complexity (two modes, two parameters, integration with contract lifecycle), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, covers both modes, mentions off-chain file transfer, and references sibling tools like claim_after_timeout. The output schema (confirmation/error) is noted, so no return value details needed.

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 0%, so the description provides all parameter meaning. It defines 'job_id' as 'The contract ID to submit delivery for' and 'delivery_hash' as 'SHA-256 hash of your deliverable (64-char hex string)' with generation commands. This adds essential context missing from the schema titles.

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 'Submit delivery hash for an Active Idios contract as the worker (Bob).' It specifies the verb (submit), resource (delivery hash for a contract), and role (worker). It distinguishes from siblings like approve_delivery and dispute_delivery by being the initial submission step.

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 explains when to use the tool (as worker Bob) and provides guidance on what happens in each mode (Mode A auto-settle, Mode B moves to AwaitingApproval). It mentions next steps like claim_after_timeout. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with other worker actions like worker_register.

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