Launch an agent in Orca

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the duplicate-agent caution but never explains why the operation is destructive, whether an existing agent would be replaced, or what side effects occur — useful but limited added context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the practical pre-check. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves the return value unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it gets an agent id, terminal id, or handle it needs for follow-up calls like orca_terminal_send. The pre-check hint is helpful, but the post-call expectations are missing for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 83%, so the schema already documents agent, model, effort, prompt, surface and worktree in detail. The description only reinforces the worktree requirement ('existing Orca worktree') and that prompt is optional, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 (start/launch) and resource (coding agent in an existing Orca worktree), plus names concrete agent examples and the optional prompt. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling orca_terminal_create, which plausibly also spawns processes.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — check orca_terminal_list first to avoid duplicate agents — and names that sibling as the alternative to consult. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. use orca_terminal_create for non-agent shells), so it falls 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.