agent_dispatch_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({routing_id, status} or {error: not_found}) and the core mutation behavior ('attach the outcome'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing outcomes, prerequisites (e.g., the row must exist), or authentication needs, leaving room for uncertainty.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then the return behavior. No filler words; every clause carries meaningful content. It's an excellent model of conciseness.

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 small tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return values, and error condition. It ties to the agent_route workflow via 'Close the loop.' The main gap is the unexplained 'app_id' parameter and the lack of any detail about preconditions for the routing_decisions row, but overall it's mostly complete.

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 compensate. It clarifies 'result' and 'status' (with examples) and explains 'routing_id' as the row identifier. However, 'app_id' is not mentioned at all, leaving one of four parameters semantically unexplained. Partial compensation is provided, but not complete.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it attaches the outcome (result text and status) to the routing_decisions row identified by routing_id, closing the loop on an agent_route call. This is a specific verb+resource pairing and explicitly names its companion tool (agent_route), distinguishing it from siblings like dispatch_send or store_update.

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 'Close the loop on an agent_route call' clearly indicates when to use this tool: after an agent_route call, to record the result. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough given the sibling list includes agent_route and dispatch_* tools, making the usage scenario clear.

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