delegate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose some behavioral traits: it validates role, workspace, reservation, duplicates, and resume binding before launching, and it explains that 'worktree: true' creates a writable task worktree. However, it omits critical details like permissions required, what happens on validation failure, whether the launch is asynchronous, and error handling. The description adds useful context but is incomplete for a complex tool with 11 parameters.

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 concise, packed into three sentences that front-load the main action and then cover validation and special cases. It avoids filler, and each sentence adds information. However, the structure could be improved with clearer separation between core functionality and parameter explanations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain most parameters, validation outcomes, error behavior, and return details beyond 'task id'. For a tool that launches tasks and interacts with workspaces, this leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 explains a few parameters: 'worktree: true' and 'seat' (1-based for bound roles). It does not describe cwd, role, brief, force, model, branch, effort, engine, or resume. The description adds some meaning for worktree and seat but leaves 9 parameters undocumented, which is insufficient at this coverage level.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Launch a specialist for a role on a brief in a working directory, returning its task id.' This is clear and distinguishable from siblings like list_roles or run_command, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The core purpose is evident, but the specialized terminology (role, brief, seat) assumes domain familiarity.

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 offered on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command or check. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The description mentions validation but doesn't explain when a delegation is appropriate or when other tools should be used instead.

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