delegate_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful non-obvious context: the task is synchronous, bounded, and runs with an approved external model. It does not mention latency, cost, or return behavior, but those are secondary given the annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant qualifiers — 'bounded,' 'synchronously,' and 'approved external model' — are front-loaded. Every word adds meaning and earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is enough to convey a one-shot synchronous delegation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, it leaves the agent to infer return behavior and does not explicitly differentiate this tool from asynchronous siblings like start_task and get_task_result.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. 'inline-text task' hints at the task parameter and 'approved external model' hints at profile, but max_output_tokens is not explained and no parameter is mapped concretely. The schema only provides structural constraints, not semantic guidance.

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 ('Run') and resource ('one bounded inline-text task') with key qualifiers, especially 'synchronously' and 'approved external model.' It is clear about the tool's main function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like start_task or get_task_result.

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?

'Synchronously' and 'inline-text' imply use for short, self-contained calls rather than asynchronous or file-based workflows. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, so the intended usage is only implied.

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