Update work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'live' delivery for prompts/replies but does not disclose idempotency requirements, delivery semantics, persistence of records, or any side effects. The schema covers idempotency_key requirement for prompt/reply, but that is in the schema, not this description.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is efficient, but for a tool with 10 parameters and 3 operations it is too underspecified to be adequately informative. It is not verbose, but it fails to convey the operational complexity or usage nuances, so it earns a middle score.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, three distinct operations, no annotations, and no output schema. The description merely lists two high-level capabilities and provides no clarity on operation selection, delivery behavior, or any edge cases. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the distinction between operations (record/prompt/reply) or explain any parameter interactions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Record' and 'deliver') with a resource ('task context' and 'live prompt/reply'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like start_work and finish_work by its messaging capability. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only states what it does without any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not explain which operation (record vs. prompt vs. reply) to choose based on context.

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