accept_deliverable

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: it discloses the deposit release side effect, the no-signature rule on escrow, the two-step x402 payment flow and what happens without a signature (nothing accepted yet), and the keypair auth requirement.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the operation and state change come first, followed by the branch-specific payment mechanics. Every sentence conveys a distinct rule an agent needs before invoking.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description covers the acceptance outcome, the payment-required JSON response, the signing procedure, and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly across all task variants.

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%, so note, rating, rating_comment, and task_id are already documented. The description adds context on when payment_signature is required versus refused, but this largely repeats the schema's own description of that field, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (accept), resource (delivered work on a task), and the precise state transition (submitted → verified). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like submit_deliverable, request_revision, and dispute_task.

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?

Explicitly branches by task type: escrow tasks release the deposit with no signature, bounty-without-escrow tasks require signing the x402 PaymentRequired response and calling again, and bounty-less tasks accept immediately. Alternatives and preconditions are spelled out rather than implied.

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