opencode_start_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool creates a session and starts the prompt asynchronously, but fails to mention return values (e.g., task ID), error conditions, authorization needs, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and async behavior. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain prerequisites, error handling, or the format of the return value (e.g., a session ID). For a 4-parameter tool handling delegation, more contextual completeness is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. It does not clarify how to obtain the server_id or agent name, which would be helpful context.

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 'Delegate a task to an OpenCode agent: create a session and start the prompt without waiting for it to finish'. It uses a specific verb ('Delegate') and resource ('task to an OpenCode agent'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like opencode_wait_for_task by noting the asynchronous nature.

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 description implies use when you want to start a task without waiting, contrasted with opencode_wait_for_task, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. It omits prerequisites such as needing a running server (see opencode_start_server) or valid agent (opencode_list_agents).

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