native_subagent_event

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive write operation. The description adds that the event is 'bounded' and that the call refreshes a dispatch lease, which is useful beyond annotations. It does not explain permissions, lease-expiry behavior, or side effects on task state.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and immediate action context. It is dense but appropriately sized for the amount of information provided.

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?

This is a mutation tool with four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description does not explain event_type expectations, payload shape, task_id role, lease semantics, errors, or return behavior, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It loosely maps 'event' to event_type and 'dispatch lease' to lease_id, but it never explains task_id, the required '^native\.' event_type naming rule, or the nested payload object. This leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Write a bounded native-thread progress event' and 'refresh its dispatch lease.' It distinguishes this from native_subagent_started/completed by focusing on progress events and lease refresh, though the jargon 'bounded native-thread' could be clearer.

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 phrase 'while waiting with wait_threads' implies this tool should be used during a wait loop, which is useful context. However, it names wait_threads while the sibling list contains wait_tasks, and it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to sibling tools.

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