dhp_dispatch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits beyond the schema: the return of a handoff_id and the durability guarantee that work survives worker death. However, it omits idempotency, retry semantics, auth/permission needs, and error behavior, so substantial gaps remain.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler, leading with the action and immediately stating the return value and durability guarantee. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained beyond the handoff_id callout. But for a three-parameter dispatch tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition should say more about acceptable task_kind values, payload expectations, and failure behavior; as written it is under-specified.

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 three required parameters (task_kind, inputs, output_schema), all nested or free-form. The description provides no meaning for any of them — not the valid values of task_kind, the shape of inputs, or the purpose of output_schema — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb ('dispatch') and resource ('durable work'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like dhp_claim, dhp_checkpoint, dhp_complete, and dhp_recover. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings in the durable-work lifecycle, leaving the agent to infer where dispatch sits.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as dhp_claim or dhp_recover. The durable-work framing only implies usage; nothing tells the agent under what circumstances to dispatch versus claim or recover.

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