content_dispatch

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

Annotations already carry the destructive, non-read-only, open-world profile, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about JWT/tenant/company scoping and clarifies that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. It does not disclose specific side effects, asynchronous behavior, or failure modes, but the annotations lower that burden.

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 three compact sentences: purpose, routing/scope, and argument meanings. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name, and the key information is front-loaded. 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?

The essential call shape is present, and the output schema covers return values. However, the description does not clarify what the `dispatch` action actually performs, when it should be chosen over the more specific content_* tools, or whether it is asynchronous or requires confirmation. For a mutable agent-dispatch tool this leaves meaningful operational behavior to inference.

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%, yet the description defines both parameters: `message` as the free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive text, though the exact structure of the `inputs` JSON is left unspecified.

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 explicitly identifies the verb ('Run'), the resource ('content domain agent action `dispatch`'), and the execution scope ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic content tools like content_chat, though it does not name a sibling alternative or contrast it with similar dispatcher tools.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_domain_agent or the content_* action tools. The routing detail is operational context, not selection guidance. An agent is left to infer when this generic dispatch should be preferred over more specific content tools.

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