jules_delegate_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the entire execution pipeline: spin up a VM, clone repo, plan changes, run tests, apply modifications, open PR. It also mentions 'prompt boosting & verification contracts.' However, it omits async behavior, return format, and potential failure modes, which would be valuable for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a compact workflow summary. Every clause adds information, with no fluff. The inclusion of 'prompt boosting & verification contracts' is brief but adds context.

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 description covers the main process but lacks critical operational context: it does not say what the tool returns, whether it is asynchronous, or how to track progress via sibling tools like jules_list_sessions. With no output schema and 8 parameters, this is a notable gap for a complex delegation tool.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description provides a high-level workflow but does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. For example, it mentions 'run test commands' but the schema already describes test_command in detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delegate an autonomous coding, refactoring, bug-fixing, or documentation task to Google Jules.' It also details the full workflow (VM sandbox, clone, plan, test, modify, PR), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sources or approve_plan, which are clearly auxiliary.

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?

The description implies usage context by describing what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or mention prerequisites like using jules_list_sources to validate source_name. It provides no guidance on handling plan approval or monitoring the delegated task.

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