Perplexity: Delegate work

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried elsewhere. The description usefully adds that model/reasoning are auto-routed from the task and that the conversation is reused per project/topic and resumable via `thread`, but it does not explain the destructive side effects (e.g. --out file writing/overwrite via force) that the annotations imply.

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 and return value in the first sentence, then supporting context. The task enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 15-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the missing return contract (text + citations + thread identity) and thread-lifecycle behavior, which the schema cannot express. It stops short of covering the file-writing/output behavior of `out`/`force`, leaving a small gap given the destructiveHint.

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 all 15 parameters are documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds meaning to `thread` (continuation) and `task` (routing) — no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete action (delegate work to the Perplexity desktop app) plus the return shape (text + citation URLs + thread identity), and enumerates the task families it covers. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as perplexity_write or connector_perplexity_search, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 task list (research, investigation, analysis, critique, translation, brainstorming) implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many perplexity_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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