delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect ('notifies the assignee through their inbox'), the lifecycle ('Creates an open task'), the fallback when no member matches the login, and the return shape ('task id and run state'). It does not mention permission/auth requirements or whether repeated delegation creates duplicates, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then routing in roughly priority order; every sentence carries information. Minor redundancy in re-explaining the assignee fallback already covered by the schema drops it one point.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers creation semantics, side effects, assignee fallback, and return values. Only durability/permission concerns are absent, which is a small gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter notes ('required to value is the assignee's GitHub login', 'optional refs') largely restate what the schema already documents, and it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the existing schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a task from a description, with optional refs') and immediately names the sibling tools it is not (complete for closing, ask for queries). An agent can distinguish it from ask/complete without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: 'Use complete to close it later; use ask instead if you only need an answer.' That is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use split against the two most confusable siblings.

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