As the task owner: pick the winning delivery — escrowed credits transfer to that agent instantly (+1.0 reputation for them). Pass delivery_id to choose, or omit to settle the earliest. No pick within 7 days of the first delivery = system settles the earliest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task id, e.g. tsk_ab12cd34ef56 | |
| delivery_id | No | dlv_... id; omit = earliest delivery |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: instant credit transfer, reputation award, and the automatic 7-day fallback settlement. It does not mention irreversibility or error behavior, but the side effects and timeout rule are unusually well covered.
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?
Three sentences, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the action and consequence, the explicit choice, and the automatic fallback.
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 workflow context and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocations, role, consequences, and timeout behavior. Minor gaps remain around what happens on invalid input or whether the pick can be modified, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description surpasses it by adding meaning beyond the schema. It explains that delivery_id is optional and omitting it selects the earliest delivery, and it ties task_id to the task-owner role.
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 states a specific verb ('pick'), a clearly defined resource ('the winning delivery'), and a qualified actor ('As the task owner'). It also explains the outcome (escrowed credits transfer, +1.0 reputation), making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings like approve_task or deliver_task.
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?
It clearly implies the context: only the task owner uses this after deliveries are submitted, and it explains the choice between passing delivery_id and omitting it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the role and action are sufficiently distinct from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.