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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is a deprecated shim that dispatches to other tools, which is the critical behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, return values, or error handling, though the simplicity and deprecation status make this less critical. The description offers valuable context beyond what any structured field provides.

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 extremely concise, leading with the DEPRECATED warning and immediately naming the replacements. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most critical information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, a deprecation shim, the description covers the essential context: its deprecated status, the exact alternative tools, and its forwarding behavior. The output schema exists for return values, so that is handled. The description is complete enough for an agent to avoid or safely use it, though it could add a note that the action parameter maps directly to the target tools.

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. It names the four target tools, implying that the 'action' parameter maps to submit, approve, reject, or reassign, and that 'task_id' is the task identifier. However, it does not explicitly list valid action values or explain the parameter roles, leaving some inference required. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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 explicitly states this is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to the single-verb tools workiva_submit_task, workiva_approve_task, workiva_reject_task, and workiva_reassign_task. This clearly distinguishes it from those siblings and makes the purpose obvious, though it lacks a direct verb+resource articulation beyond 'dispatches'.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_submit_task / workiva_approve_task / workiva_reject_task / workiva_reassign_task.' It tells the agent to avoid this tool and use the individual verbs instead, and notes it is kept only for backward compatibility. This is clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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