Allocate task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: policy-checking, the spawn_agent ordering, the returned task_id, and the role-edge restriction. However, it omits side effects, policy-failure behavior, idempotency semantics, and prerequisites.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds a distinct fact: policy-checking, spawn_agent ordering, task_id usage, and the parent-child role-edge constraint.

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 19-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It provides the workflow hook and one output field but does not explain policy rules, required parameters, or behavior on invalid input.

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 0% across 19 parameters, and the description names none of them. It only references the returned task_id, leaving required fields like missionId, objective, role, capabilityPack, and idempotencyKey completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Allocate'), names the resource ('policy-checked work package'), and situates the tool in the workflow ('before native spawn_agent'). It also distinguishes this from sibling lifecycle tools by mentioning the returned task_id and the parent-child role edge constraint.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool ('before native spawn_agent') and how to use its result ('Put the returned task_id into the child's prompt'). It also gives a key constraint ('only direct parent-child role edges are accepted'), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other phases.

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