Delegate tooling and maintenance work to Grok Build

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by spelling out the routing behavior (backend→Codex, frontend→Kimi), the 'never for speed' caveat, and the mode-dependent editing semantics. It also flags the possibility of 'mechanical repository-wide transformations,' which implies potentially broad changes. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with a verb and resource, followed by explicit routing rules, a caution, and mode semantics. No fluff, perfect density.

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 9 parameters, strong annotations, and sibling tools, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, routing, when-not-to-use, and mode distinctions. The only omission is a description of what this tool returns or how to check results, but the presence of a sibling tool 'specialist_status' likely covers monitoring. For a delegation tool, this is nearly complete.

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 every parameter already has a description. The tool description goes slightly beyond the schema by giving examples of what belongs in 'task' (dependency upgrades, CI automation, lint cleanup), which helps the agent form a task. This is marginal added value, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear directive: 'Delegate domain-neutral build tooling, dependency or toolchain upgrades, CI and release automation, mechanical repository-wide transformations, generated boilerplate, or test and lint cleanup to Grok Build.' This specifies the exact resource (Grok Build) and enumerates concrete task domains. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by assigning backend work to Codex and frontend/UX work to Kimi, making the division of responsibilities unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: list of accepted task types. It also gives exclusions: 'Backend behavior belongs to Codex and frontend or UX behavior belongs to Kimi unless the user explicitly overrides routing.' A strong caution, 'Never choose Grok solely for speed,' and mode guidance ('Use analyze/review for read-only work and implement for edits') round out comprehensive usage instructions.

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