Run Devin worker

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds critical context: the worker may edit files and run commands (explaining the destructive nature), one external job runs at a time per bridge instance (a concurrency constraint), and it returns a job_id promptly (async behavior). This meaningfully exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately stating the return value and the follow-up tool. No filler.

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?

Covers the async start/poll model, the destructive capability, the concurrency limit, and the result-retrieval path, complementing annotations and the fully-documented schema. No output schema exists, but the description explains the job_id return so nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in the schema, including defaults, bounds, and a note that scope does not enforce isolation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Start a delegated engineering task'), and explicitly names the sibling devin_wait as the way to collect results, distinguishing it from the polling tool. The async nature and the job_id return are clear.

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?

Clear routing to devin_wait for results and an implied fire-and-forget usage model. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. doing the work directly) or describe the role of devin_cancel, leaving some alternative-selection gaps.

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