company_settle_dispatch

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 hints that the dispatch must pre-exist ('existing') and that settlement flows through a runtime, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., finalizing or paying out the dispatch, suggested by the unexplained usd_rate parameter), irreversibility, required state, or failure conditions—critical gaps for a mutation-like 'settle' operation.

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 14-word sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Settle the worker's existing dispatch') and the mechanism as a trailing qualifier—zero wasted words. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of its under-specification elsewhere.

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 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits parameter semantics, side effects, prerequisites, and usage context. The presence of an output schema spares it from needing to explain return values, but everything else an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all six parameters are completely undocumented and the description must compensate. It only implicitly maps to worker_ref (the worker) and loosely to the dispatch/execution-record artifacts; project_id, bundle_json, instance_json, now, and usd_rate remain unexplained even though the description is the agent's sole source of parameter meaning.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Settle') and resource ('the worker's existing dispatch'), and adds a mechanism ('through the scoped runtime using its platform execution record'). The core action is discernible, but the heavy jargon ('dispatch', 'scoped runtime', 'platform execution record') is left undefined, and no explicit differentiation from siblings like company_settlements is given, which prevents a 5.

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 context, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are provided. In a sibling space crowded with related company_* tools (company_settlements, company_pay_run, company_payroll), the single-sentence description gives the agent no routing guidance for choosing this tool over them.

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