delegate_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the task is asynchronous and that the return value is limited to task and conversation handles, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, required permissions, persistence, or how the task will eventually be tracked, leaving significant behavioral context undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key behavioral trait (asynchronous) plus return-value limitation. Every clause earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the content it delivers.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only a sparse description, yet it has three parameters (two required) and sits in a lifecycle with siblings. The description is not complete enough to guide the agent: it does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the structure of the handles it returns, or how this task relates to subsequent tools like get_task or continue_task. Given the moderate complexity and absence of annotations/output schema, more detail is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate for explaining parameters like prompt, workspace, and allowed_paths. The description provides no parameter-specific semantics—it does not define what 'prompt' should contain, what 'workspace' refers to, or what 'allowed_paths' controls. This leaves the agent without essential guidance for filling in the parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Create an asynchronous secure coding task.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('secure coding task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_task and continue_task by focusing on new task creation. The mention of returning 'only its task and conversation handles' further clarifies its unique scope.

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 implies the tool is for creating new asynchronous tasks, which suggests when to use it (when you need to delegate a new task). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like continue_task. There are no named alternatives or exclusion criteria, so the usage context is only implied.

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