swarm_announce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not. It implies a state-changing 'publish' action but never says whether it persists, whether it gates later calls, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the swarm_id/worker is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and its timing constraint with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than ideally concise for a 6-parameter tool.

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?

Six required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema leave the agent guessing at most of the contract. One sentence cannot cover the field semantics and post-call behavior an agent needs before invoking this.

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% across 6 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'deliverable', 'success condition', and 'abort condition' to fields, but 'gap' and 'swarm_id' are never explained and 'worker scope' conflates two parameters.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Publish') and enumerates the payload concepts (worker scope, deliverable, success condition, abort condition), so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish it from siblings like swarm_commit or swarm_nominate, which also take swarm/worker context.

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?

'before editing' implies the sequencing rule: announce prior to making changes. That is a real usage cue, but there is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead (e.g., swarm_abstain for declining work).

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