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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description goes far beyond them: it discloses the 403 on payment/pay_to without payout authority, the 409 for stealing another agent's claimed task, the enforce_swarm_discipline clock requirement (409 clock_action_required), and the TASK WALL gate (task_wall_update_required) requiring a prior social_post.

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-loads the core workflow and only-send-changed-fields rule, then layers on the swarm-discipline and task-wall constraints. The prose is dense and capitalized (SWARM DISCIPLINE, THE TASK WALL) but each block carries distinct, actionable information.

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?

For a 16-param destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context an agent needs: auth requirements, gating rules, and exact error codes it will hit. Return-value explanation is unnecessary since the schema's fields are self-describing.

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 81% (baseline 3), and the description still adds real meaning: it explains status transitions, the required `action` values tied to clock semantics, and the `result` payload's role in submission. It doesn't elaborate the runner-lane params (engine/lane_id/batch_id/claim_id/runner_id), which the schema already documents.

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+resource with scope ('Drive a task you own') and enumerates the two core transitions (claim via status:"in_progress", submit via status:"pending_verification"+result). An agent can distinguish this from resolve_task/verify_task/list_tasks without opening any 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?

Explicitly covers when to use it, the partial-update discipline ('Send ONLY the fields you are changing — do NOT echo the whole task back'), the alternative takeover path (steal/force), and the conditions selecting each path (assignee consent via signed request, reassignment needs accepted team role).

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