dynamic_workflow_attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects, and it does not. It never states whether attaching custody replaces existing custody, whether the operation is reversible, what state changes occur on the run, or how expected_revision and idempotency_key govern concurrency and retry safety. 'Attach' implies mutation, but the consequences are undisclosed.

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 a single 11-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler words—every word earns its place. It is slightly under-sized for the complexity of an 8-parameter orchestration tool, but as pure structure and economy it is well-formed.

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 8-required-parameter workflow-coordination tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output-schema visibility cannot be adequately specified by one clause. Missing are preconditions on run state, the semantics of expected_revision/idempotency_key/host_session_ref, and the effect on existing custody. The presence of an output schema helps only with return values, not the input contract.

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 the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps host_role to the three role names and implies run_ref is the target. It says nothing about expected_revision (optimistic concurrency), idempotency_key (deduplication), host_session_ref, or how company_ref/project_ref scope the operation. Most of the 8 required parameters remain semantically 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 ('Attach'), identifies the resource ('host custody') and target ('a run'), and enumerates the role types (planner, builder, evaluator), which maps to the host_role parameter. However, 'host custody' is domain jargon whose exact meaning—what custody entails or whether it replaces existing custody—is opaque, and it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like dynamic_workflow_start.

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 on when to use this tool versus the closely related dynamic_workflow_start, dynamic_workflow_next_assignment, or dynamic_workflow_submit_* siblings. There are no stated preconditions (e.g., run must exist, host must be available), exclusions, or alternative-routing hints. The single sentence provides no usage context whatsoever.

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