delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: automatic provider failover and context continuity. It says nothing about permissions, cost, side effects, or what a failure/retry looks like, so the safety and failure profile is still blank.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, prerequisites, return behavior, and routing guidance that an agent would need to invoke 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 0% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them. goal, role, target, mission_id, and project_id are completely undocumented, so an agent cannot know what to supply or how they interact with the required prompt.

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 verb and resource ("delegate one task") and hints at scope with "one task," which partially distinguishes it from the multi-agent sibling swarm_run. However, it never says what it delegates to (a model? a provider? a sub-agent?), leaving the core action ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives in the sibling list (consensus, swarm_run, or the discovery tools list_models/provider_inventory). The reader must infer that this is the single-task path versus multi-agent orchestration.

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