delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: this is asynchronous ('start', not 'run'), it returns task_id/state/version, and the answer may be included immediately if the peer responds quickly. It omits failure semantics, permission/auth requirements, and what cancellation via time_limit_minutes does to returned state, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded, then the return contract, then the follow-up pointer. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description helpfully summarizes task_id/state/version and the immediate-answer case. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, however, it could say more about session semantics and what happens when the peer is unreachable or the time limit trips.

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 coverage is 100%, so peer, message, session_id, and time_limit_minutes are already fully documented in the schema, including the default of 60 minutes. The description only reinforces the list_peers linkage for peer, adding no semantics beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a task on a peer') and explicitly names the discovery sibling list_peers for resolving the peer. It also names get_delegated_task_updates as the follow-up tool, so an agent can place it precisely in the delegation workflow.

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?

Clear routing guidance: use list_peers to find the peer and get_delegated_task_updates to follow the task afterwards. It doesn't state when *not* to delegate (e.g., local task tools like update_task) or any prerequisites such as needing an existing session, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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