submit_completion_review

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral outcomes: accept triggers payment and worker payouts, reject requires a reason and creates a dispute row. It also clarifies that reject leaves resolution to another endpoint. However, it omits details on error conditions, idempotency, or required permissions for a 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently packs accept/reject outcomes into a single sentence. However, the sentence is long and could be broken into two for improved readability, though it remains clear.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main outcomes. However, it lacks contextual completeness: it does not mention prerequisites like required task state, nor does it describe error behavior or the return value. Without output schema, agents would benefit from knowing what the tool returns on success/failure.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the role of decision (accept vs reject) and that reason is required for reject. However, it does not specify the exact allowed values for decision (e.g., 'accept', 'reject'), leaving ambiguity. The reason parameter is clarified as needed for reject only, which adds value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reviews submitted proof and distinguishes accept (publishes escrow event) from reject (creates dispute). It identifies the specific resource (completion review) and action (submit). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like submit_rating or cancel_task, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage when reviewing completion proof, but fails to provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., task must be in a certain status) or alternatives like using cancel_task for earlier intervention. Acceptance requires an implied prior state, but this is not stated.

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