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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark it a non-read, non-destructive write), the description discloses concrete side effects ('Mints a completed task + completion under the Chief of Staff worker and a dispatcher_action ledger event on the root'), the auth requirement ('Requires agent:dispatch'), and a conditional path for kind=deploy. This is exactly the behavioral context the rubric credits.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place — kinds, side effects, deploy exception, auth. However, it is a single dense multi-clause sentence mixing protocol jargon ('protocol v0.2 D6'), conditional logic, and side effects, which makes parsing slightly harder than a structured two- or three-sentence form would.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, kinds, side effects, auth, and the deploy-specific composition. The remaining gaps are the unauthorized branch of the deploy path ('when the root is authorized' but no behavior stated for the unauthorized case) and no indication of the response shape.

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 cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: it ties kind=deploy to evidence.deploy_id as a required conditional, and maps root_id to the cycle root via the endpoint path. The per-parameter descriptions in the schema already carry the format details, but the description frames the kind/evidence interplay.

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 names a specific verb ('Record'), resource ('chief-of-staff dispatcher action on a coordination cycle'), and outcome ('as a receipt'), then enumerates the seven valid kinds. It distinguishes itself from siblings by citing the POST endpoint and explicitly clarifying its relationship to coord_record_integration ('one call that does both records').

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 gives clear context for use — recording dispatcher actions as receipts, with the seven kinds enumerated — and explicitly flags the deploy case where it composes coord_record_integration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with the dispatch siblings (tascan_dispatch_instruction, tascan_dispatch_to_agent), so it stops short of a 5.

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