mesh_delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important behavior: the task is routed over HTTP to a previously registered endpoint. But it does not say whether the call is synchronous, asynchronous, fire-and-forget, or what happens on failure, which leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the routing detail adds necessary context without bloating the description.

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 low-complexity tool with full parameter schema coverage, the description is usable. However, the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description should also clarify async behavior, return values, or failure semantics; those are not addressed.

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 covers both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implying targetName must correspond to an agent with a registered HTTP endpoint, which is not stated in the schema's parameter descriptions.

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: 'Delegate a task to an agent.' It also adds the distinctive routing mechanism ('Routes via HTTP callback to the agent's registered endpoint'), which clearly separates this from siblings like mesh_register, mesh_discover, and mesh_unregister.

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 intended use is implied by the first sentence: use this when you want to delegate a task to an agent. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites beyond having a registered endpoint, or how it compares to the sibling tools.

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