dispatch_after_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool writes 'approval_granted' and dispatch audit lines for recoverability, and mentions future USAP-signing requirements for the approval token. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond mere invocation.

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 concise with three sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key info ('Phase 3 explicit dispatch') and efficiently conveys workflow, behavior, and audit impact.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and nested objects, the description provides sufficient workflow context (phase, prior step, future requirement). It could elaborate on the return value or error handling, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to use correctly within the workflow.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'approval_token' (audit token, future signing requirement) and contextualizes 'mcp_id' and 'capability_id' from the prior route decision, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it's 'Phase 3 explicit dispatch' after an approval decision. It specifies it invokes the downstream capability and writes audit lines. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'route_payload' (which returns approval_required) and 'validate_payload', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use: after 'route_payload' returned 'approval_required' and the client surfaced the prompt. It provides clear contextual conditions. It does not mention when not to use, but the workflow context is strong.

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