expedite_task

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the side effect on the resulting receipt (intensitySource='expedited'), the fact that a scheduled carbon optimization is overridden, and the precise rejection conditions. It does not cover auth requirements, idempotency of repeat calls, or rate limits.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its key consequence (carbon-window bypass) before the eligibility rules. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain outcomes; it names the receipt field and the error behavior, which covers most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and permissions for an operation that intentionally overrides a carbon-optimized schedule.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by constraining which task_id values are legal (only queued/scheduled provider-call tasks), which the schema cannot express.

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/expedite), resource (queued or scheduled provider-call task), and the distinguishing behavior (bypassing the scheduler's carbon window). An agent can separate this from schedule_task, cancel_task, and retry_task purely from the description.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the eligible states (queued/scheduled provider-call tasks) and the rejected states (running, submitted awaiting Batch results, terminal completed/failed/cancelled), with the consequence of misuse (explanatory error). It does not route the agent to a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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