Dispatch autonomous testing agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: async execution, 1-3 minute duration, the response is tracking info only, and final results arrive later through chat notifications. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 async/returns-tracking caveat is front-loaded in the second half of the opening, and the misuse warning is placed immediately after it. Every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact; no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly explains what the return value is (dispatch confirmation/tracking info) and where the real results appear. Combined with the prerequisite and polling alternative, an agent has everything it needs to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 100%, so suiteUuid, analysisIdentifier, and the nested testCases array (testCaseId/userStoryId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the conceptual prerequisite that cases must belong to an existing suite, but no extra format or value guidance beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Dispatch an autonomous AI agent to execute specific test cases") and immediately clarifies the mechanism (real browser, navigation, test steps, result reporting). This makes it distinguishable from the other dispatch tool (wopee_dispatch_analysis) and from the fetch tools.

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?

It states a hard precondition (test cases must exist; generate via wopee_generate_artifact with type USER_STORIES_WITH_TEST_CASES), gives the follow-up path for status (wopee_fetch_recent_executions / wopee_fetch_executed_test_cases), and explicitly warns against a misuse (treating the response as pass/fail).

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