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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: same key/workspace/name retries return the same UUID, and conflicting or inactive bindings fail without takeover or reactivation. It further clarifies side-effect boundaries ('creates no key, changes no scope'), which the annotations alone do not convey.

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, then layered constraints, prerequisites, and exclusions in a single dense paragraph. Every clause carries information, though the density is high enough that it reads more like a spec block than prose.

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 prerequisites, required ordering, idempotency semantics, failure behavior, and explicit exclusions. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains the origin of expected_key_id (key.id from task_agent_get), the workspace-scoping role of workspace_id, and the role of name in retry idempotency. The context parameter is not addressed here, but it carries its own detailed schema description, so the gap is minor.

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 and resource ('register one assignable task agent') scoped to 'this connection's existing key in one workspace,' and explicitly delimits against siblings by declaring it does not 'assign/import/start tasks.' An agent can distinguish it from task_add and task_agent_get without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('after the user approves that durable binding,' write-scoped API key restricted to this workspace, owner/admin membership) and sequencing ('Read task_agent_get first and pass its key.id as expected_key_id'). It also names what the tool does not do, so the when-not is covered.

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