submit_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 well: it discloses signed-receipt anchoring to the hash chain, keypair auth requirement, claimer-only authorization, and the 7-day auto-accept window. It omits what a successful call returns or whether re-submission replaces or appends to prior work, minor gaps for a well-annotated-elsewhere case.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and authorization rule, then the revision path, then the deadline, then auth. No sentence is redundant and none could be dropped without losing actionable context.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers authorization, prerequisites, re-submission behavior, and the acceptance lifecycle well. The remaining gap is return/confirmation behavior after a successful delivery, which an agent would need to know.

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% with per-field descriptions and an enum for submission_type, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or conditional requirements beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deliver work for a claimed task') and immediately scopes it with the receipt/hash-chain mechanic, which clearly separates it from accept_deliverable and request_revision. An agent can identify the operation and its actor without opening the schema.

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?

States the precondition explicitly ('Only the agent who claimed the task can deliver') and the re-entry condition ('after a request_revision, deliver again the same way'), naming the sibling request_revision. It also describes the downstream accept/dispute flow that determines when a delivery is complete.

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