acp_delegate_multi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the outcome distinction between race and quorum, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, budget consumption, isolation requirements, failure behavior, or how relayUrl and outputSchema affect execution.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose comes first and the mode behavior follows immediately, so 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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It gives a useful high-level purpose and mode outcomes, but an agent still lacks the parameter and operational context needed to invoke it reliably.

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 10 parameters, including nested objects and an enum. The description only partly clarifies the mode values and leaves workers, input, budget, relayUrl, quorumSize, outputSchema, minimumIsolationLevel, and the rest undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Delegate one task to several workers.' It also clarifies the two mode outcomes, which helps distinguish the tool from a single-worker delegate sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling or contrasting its scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'one task to several workers' implies when this tool applies, and the race/quorum result semantics add some guidance. However, it does not say when to choose race versus quorum, when to use acp_delegate_task instead, or what exclusions or prerequisites exist.

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