return_account_to_background

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: this is a state transition that resumes headless dispatch after manual intervention. It says nothing about whether an open manual workspace is closed, whether in-flight tasks are interrupted, permission requirements, or failure modes.

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?

A single short sentence with the precondition front-loaded ahead of the action. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters the schema burden is nil. But for a zero-annotation state-mutating tool, the description should say what the transition does to existing manual sessions and when it errors; that 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No spurious parameter language is added.

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 verb + resource ('return this account') is identifiable, and 'to headless course dispatch' indicates the account goes back to automated processing, but 'headless course dispatch' is internal jargon that an agent must infer. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings such as claim_current_account or start_account_workspace.

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?

'After manual work' gives a thin trigger condition for calling it, which is more than nothing. However, no alternative is named (e.g., what to call instead if the account is already headless, or whether claim_current_account must have been used first), leaving the routing decision implied.

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