delegate_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers key behavioral context: the operation consumes real billable hours and requires user confirmation unless pre-authorized. It also discloses the return value (taskId for tracking). It stops short of stating cancellation, failure, or turnaround behavior for a real-world action.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, and the cost/confirmation prerequisite is front-loaded. Slight structural awkwardness in leading with the workflow instruction before stating what the tool actually does, but 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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, cost, prerequisite workflow, and the returned identifier. Remaining gaps (expected content of the description field, cost magnitude, failure handling) are minor but real.

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 75%, so the schema already documents title, webhookUrl, and description; the description adds no field-level syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting and priority's enum is left unaddressed.

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 and resource ('Delegate a task to a real human virtual assistant') plus the scope condition ('when the AI cannot complete it autonomously'). The concrete examples (phone calls, 2FA-gated logins, physical-world actions) make it unmistakable against siblings get_balance, list_tasks, and get_task.

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?

Explicit when-to-use enumeration plus a named alternative in the workflow: 'Call get_balance first, then confirm with the user before sending... unless they already said to send it.' The exclusion/exception condition is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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