task_delegate

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

Discloses key behavioral trait that ownership is retained while completion rights are granted to the delegatee. However, lacks disclosure on reversibility, idempotency, error conditions, or return values given no annotations provide this safety context.

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 sentences with zero waste: first defines the action, second clarifies the ownership model, third states the use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

Description adequately covers the delegation concept and workflow context. However, given zero parameters and no output schema or annotations, it lacks necessary technical details about how to identify the task/user and what the operation returns.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description implies required inputs (task identifier, target user) through the functional explanation, though these are absent from the provided schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Delegate' with resource 'user task' and distinguishes from siblings like task_claim or task_setAssignee by explicitly stating the original owner retains ownership while the delegated user gains completion rights.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance ('Use for escalation workflows') indicating when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like task_setAssignee for permanent transfers.

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