witness_submit_blind

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the witness does not verify identity, that identity is self-asserted in v1, and that commitments are revealed only after both submissions. It adds context beyond basic usage.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a concept paragraph, a numbered flow, and a note. While informative, it is slightly verbose; each sentence earns its place but could be tightened.

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 complexity of a blind conclusion exchange, the description covers the concept, flow, and caveats well. It lacks return value information since there is no output schema, but the tool likely returns a confirmation or status.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes conclusion_key as a shared identifier with examples, and mentions commitment_hash_hex as the hash. However, it does not specify exact format (e.g., hex length, hash algorithm) or constraints.

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 submits a committed assessment to a blind conclusion exchange, with a detailed explanation of the concept. It distinguishes from siblings like prove_independence (local sealing) and witness_get_blind (retrieval of commitments).

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 outlines the flow: both parties must first seal locally via prove_independence, then use this tool with the same conclusion_key. It provides clear context on when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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