Delegate a contract to Reasonix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations: 'asynchronous execution,' 'supervised finalization,' and 'isolated worktree/session.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the most important condition ('Use only after explicit user request or approval'). Every clause adds value, with no repetition or 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?

The tool has a highly nested contract schema, but an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description provides essential context about the execution model (async, supervised) and the tool's place among siblings, though it could give slightly more detail on the contract's required fields. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a complex tool.

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%, and the schema is complex with 4 parameters including task_id, contract, resume, and base_ref. The description only references 'contract' and 'TaskContractV1' but does not explain the meaning or usage of specific parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema description coverage.

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 title 'Delegate a contract to Reasonix' and the description's opening phrase 'Reasonix implementation requiring an immutable TaskContractV1' clearly state the tool's function: to delegate a contract to Reasonix for implementation. It distinguishes from the sibling tools (reasonix_control, reasonix_inspect) by focusing on delegation rather than control or inspection.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool: 'Use only after explicit user request or approval' and when not to: 'Never substitute native Codex subagents for approved Reasonix work.' It also names alternatives: 'use native subagents for bounded parallel exploration, tests, triage, or summaries.' This is a clear usage guide with explicit exclusions.

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