delegate

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that Deputy operates autonomously in the workspace, edits files, runs commands, and returns a short report listing changed files. It also adds an important operational warning to verify results and run tests, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context needed for a destructive, open-world delegation 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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses compact parameter notes. Every sentence contributes either selection guidance, parameter semantics, or necessary verification advice.

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?

The tool is a complex, destructive delegation operation, and the description covers autonomy, scope, reporting, verification, and all five parameters. Because an output schema exists, it does not need to explain return structure further.

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%, and the description compensates fully: it explains task, context, thinking modes, workdir semantics, and the narrow use case for project_dir. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Hand a well-specified coding task to Deputy') and explains that Deputy autonomously reads/edits files and runs commands. It implicitly distinguishes this from siblings such as review or consult by emphasizing autonomous coding work, but does not explicitly name or differentiate those alternatives.

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 gives a clear usage rule: in accuracy mode, delegate only when the user explicitly asks for delegation. It still leaves the exact boundary versus consult, review, and investigate implicit, so it is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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