Submit one ZCode coding task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the Bridge never creates/selects/removes worktrees, that the task runs asynchronously in a detached worker, that model override is session-scoped and not a project default change, and — critically — that status 'completed' means the invocation and report normalization finished, NOT that the host accepted the work. That last point is non-obvious semantics an agent could easily misread without the text.

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?

Purpose and the worktree/workspace decision are front-loaded, and the review caveat is a useful closing sentence. It is somewhat verbose for its content — the worktree policy is restated ('The Bridge never creates, selects, or removes a worktree' appears twice in spirit) and there are minor typos ('the the calling host') mid-sentence that slightly hurt scanning.

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 described, and the description correctly spends its words on non-derivable behavior (async execution, status semantics, worktree ownership). However, for a 12-parameter, 8-required tool with zero schema property descriptions, leaving most task-package fields (objective, requirements, allowed/forbidden paths, acceptance_criteria, test_commands, timeout_ms) unexplained is a real gap in how to construct a valid call.

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 12 parameters, and the description only explains three of them (workspace, worktree_path, model). task_id, objective, requirements, allowed_paths, forbidden_paths, acceptance_criteria, test_commands, context, and timeout_ms get no semantic guidance in either place, so the description does not 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 and resource — 'Create a bounded coding task for the local ZCode subordinate agent' — and immediately pins down the two key inputs (workspace, worktree_path). An agent can distinguish this from sibling lifecycle tools (zcode_status, zcode_result, zcode_cancel) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for the tricky case: the calling host decides whether to create a worktree, and only then passes an existing absolute directory as worktree_path; otherwise ZCode runs directly in workspace. It does not route the agent to sibling tools (e.g., polling via zcode_status/zcode_result after submission), so it stops short of explicit alternative selection.

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