Create task artifact manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the manifest is persistent, it grants 'automatic scoped reading instructions', and it explicitly does not spawn workers, which clarifies the side-effect boundary of a non-read-only tool.

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 plus a one-line caveat, all front-loaded with the core action first, then integration, then the side-effect boundary. Zero 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 no explanation, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters. The description covers purpose, integration path, and side-effect scope, leaving only the create-vs-sibling relationship unstated.

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 100%, so entries (1..32 unique descriptors), task_id, and ttl_seconds are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (pin immutable artifact versions in a persistent task manifest) and adds a scope caveat ('This does not spawn workers') that helps distinguish it from worker-spawning siblings. It does not explicitly name artifact_manifest_get/verify/release, but the create/pin framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

Provides a downstream usage instruction (pass the returned manifest to get_subagent_context.artifact_manifest) and a negative condition ('does not spawn workers'), but gives no when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools like artifact_manifest_get, artifact_manifest_verify, or artifact_publish. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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