Выполнить подготовленную запись Kwork

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds the critical non-obvious behaviors: no automatic remote retry, shared ledger dedup returning the stored result, the submission_unknown/isError state after timeout/proxy loss/5xx/unconfirmed offer_id, and the confirm-mode precondition. Contradictions with annotations are absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, but the paragraph packs many clauses (idempotency, ledger, no-retry, error states, confirm gate) into run-on sentences without line breaks. Every sentence earns its place, but structure could be sharper for such dense operational rules.

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?

Covers the operational essentials an agent needs (retry semantics, error landing zone, confirm gate) and an output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Missing a one-line note on what the commit actually writes to (the Kwork offer/order) and the source of confirmation_token, which would close the last gap.

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 coverage is 0% — the three params (write_id, payload_hash, confirmation_token) have no descriptions in the schema. The description partially compensates by implying the token/payload_hash must match the prepared write and that the token comes from a prior prepare step, but it never defines the fields' semantics (e.g. where confirmation_token comes from, hash source). Baseline 3 is the ceiling given the modest compensation.

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+resource (commit/выполнить подготовленный payload) and distinguishes itself from prepare_write and reconcile_write by referring to 'ровно подготовленный payload' and the shared one-writer ledger. Clear what it commits, though the Kwork-specific object being written is somewhat implicit.

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 routes: repeat only with the same write_id/payload_hash/token (idempotent retry), never after submission_unknown — instead call reconcile_write. And gates invocation on KWORK_WRITES=confirm requiring an explicit user 'yes'. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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