route_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lock' signals a state-changing side effect, but it doesn't say whether the lock is reversible, how it affects the provider/model or pipeline, or what preconditions/auth are required.

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 a single action-first sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the capitalized 'Working' is unexplained jargon, and the sentence omits useful context, making it concise at the expense of substance.

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 routing tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, one vague sentence is materially incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, side-effect details, and any connection to the surrounding workflow tools; the output schema may document return values but cannot compensate for the missing entry-point guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description names none of the 10 parameters. It doesn't map 'selected provider/model' to task, prompt, preferred_providers, excluded_providers, or any other parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the input schema.

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 concrete action ('Prepare and lock') on a specific resource ('selected provider/model') with a temporal anchor ('before Working may begin'). It gives an agent a clear idea of what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like prepare_task or confirm_and_run.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'before Working may begin,' which implies a point in the workflow but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are named, so an agent cannot confidently choose route_task over prepare_task, approve_preflight, or run_prepared_task.

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