aras_delegate_activity

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. It only says the activity is delegated rather than voted on and suggests how to find required IDs. It does not explain side effects of delegation, permission requirements, reversibility, or the role of the dryRun parameter, which is especially important given the default of true.

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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the lookup instruction is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter action with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits the meaning of dryRun, the practical effect of delegation, and any expected return value. The get_workflow hint is useful, but not enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 description partially compensates for low schema coverage by explaining that activity and assignment IDs come from aras_get_workflow, and that the target is another identity. However, dryRun and commenti are not semantically clarified, and with only 20% schema description coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 states a specific action ('Delega'), a clear resource ('attivita' di workflow'), and the recipient ('a un'altra identita'). It also explicitly contrasts this with voting ('invece di votarla'), which distinguishes it from the sibling aras_vote_activity.

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 usage context by positioning the tool as an alternative to voting and instructs the agent to use aras_get_workflow to find the activity and assignment. It does not exhaustively enumerate when-not-to-use or all alternative tools, but it provides enough routing guidance.

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