gibwork_submit_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important traits: cryptographic signing with a Solana Ed25519 keypair and registration of a proof packet on Gibwork, which signals a write/on-chain operation. It omits that a live Solana transaction may be submitted, that dry_run defaults to true, whether a keypair must be pre-configured, and whether repeat submissions are permitted — all material for a signing/mutation tool.

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?

One tightly constructed sentence with the operation sequence front-loaded and zero filler; nothing is repeated and nothing is padding.

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 five-parameter mutation tool that signs with a private key and may broadcast a Solana transaction, with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is thin. An agent still lacks keypair/auth requirements, the live-vs-dry-run consequence, failure modes, and what the returned proof packet contains.

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 all five parameters documented including the dry_run default and the meaning of workspace_path and notes, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — notably it never mentions the dry-run capability, which is the single most consequential parameter for this tool.

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?

Names a specific multi-step action (prepare, sign, register) against a specific resource (bounty submission proof packet) on a named platform. It is distinguishable from gibwork_list_bounties and gibwork_get_bounty by verb and object, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with gibwork_verify_deliverable, the closest-adjacent sibling.

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 never says when to call this versus gibwork_verify_deliverable, nor what prerequisites exist (a configured Ed25519 keypair, an existing bounty, a valid submission_url). No exclusions or preconditions are stated; the agent must infer everything from the verb.

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