acp_delegate_task

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 mentions verified output and an audit summary, but omits side effects, budget handling, auth or invite requirements, isolation behavior, and whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately terse, though its brevity contributes to the broader under-specification problem.

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?

With nine parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for the tool's complexity. It gives a high-level outcome but leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly without guessing about most inputs.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across nine parameters, and the tool description explains none of them. Critical inputs such as budget, relayUrl, workerDid, inviteToken, outputSchema, and minimumIsolationLevel are left entirely undefined.

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 has a specific verb and resource: delegate one task to an ACP worker. It also states the return value (verified deliverable plus audit summary). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with acp_delegate_multi, but that sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. The single-task phrasing weakly implies that acp_delegate_multi is for multiple tasks, but the agent must infer this rather than being told.

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