Delegate Complete Task to OMP (Low-level)

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

Annotations already mark this tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), and the description reinforces that by saying ownership is transferred. The description adds value by disclosing that it is a low-level delegation entrypoint and that it returns immediately, which helps the agent understand the async behavior. However, it does not elaborate on what destruction entails or if there are side effects beyond ownership transfer.

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 two sentences long, with the key verb and immediate behavior in the first sentence, and the alternative suggestion in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 relative complexity (6 parameters, async delegation, destructive, with an output schema for return value), the description covers the high-level intent but omits details about parameter semantics and what exactly is returned beyond 'job_id'. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and return behavior is only partially described.

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 50%, so the description should compensate but does not explicitly describe each parameter. The description only mentions 'goal' and 'cwd' contextually, while schema provides descriptions for most parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like 'acceptance', 'max_attempts', 'timeout_minutes', or 'supervisor_brief'. Baseline is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 the tool's action ('delegate' an execution task to OMP), the resource ('execution task'), and the return value ('returns immediately with job_id'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'omp_run_compact' by calling it a low-level entrypoint.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool and when to prefer an alternative. It says 'Prefer omp_run_compact for standard workflows to avoid separate delegate/wait round trips', explicitly naming the sibling and the trade-off. This is the highest level of usage guidance an agent could want.

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