submit_proof

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses execution duration (30-90 sec), internal circuit execution (Noir), and output type (UltraHonk proof). However, it omits error conditions, idempotency, and whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and step, the second adds technical detail, and the third covers timing. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and missing annotations, the description does not detail the return format beyond 'UltraHonk proof', nor does it explicitly state prerequisites like the need for a challenge from request_challenge. While it mentions 'prepared inputs', the flow dependencies are implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the 'inputs' parameter to the 'prepare_inputs' sibling tool ('Full ProveInputs object from prepare_inputs'), providing context beyond the schema for one parameter.

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 identifies the tool as Step 3 of a flow, uses a specific verb ('submit prepared inputs'), and specifies the resource ('ZK proof'). It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_inputs (step 2) and verify_proof (step 5) by its position in the sequence.

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 positions the tool in a step-by-step flow ('Step 3') and mentions timing (30-90 sec), but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or contrast with siblings like generate_proof. Usage guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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