t2000_job_deliver

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full weight. Discloses content-addressed storage, sha256 pinning on-chain, verification, opening buyer review window, and sponsorship (no gas). Does not cover failure modes or edge cases (e.g., unverified delivery), but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Three sentences, zero fluff. Main action stated first, followed by technical details and side effects. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when/why to use, what happens, and parameter details. No gaps for this tool's complexity level.

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?

Both parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds significant value: jobId references t2000_jobs with role context; delivery explains storage mechanism, hash-pinning, and optional envelope format. This extra guidance helps agents format inputs correctly.

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?

Clearly states the tool posts a delivery on a funded job from the seller side before deadline. Distinguishes from siblings like t2000_job_create, t2000_job_settle, and t2000_job_review by specifying it opens the buyer's review window and mirrors existing CLI tool.

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?

Specifies seller role, funded job, and deadline condition. Explicit about when to use, but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools for other roles (e.g., buyer). Still clear enough for correct invocation.

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