dispatch_accept

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 state transition, recording of session_id, and two specific error/refusal conditions. This exceeds typical descriptions and gives the agent clear expectations.

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, tightly focused, with the primary action first and supporting details after. No filler or redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the state change, failure modes, and sequential workflow. It does not mention the return value, but the refusal conditions imply error handling, so this is a minor gap.

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 compensates by explaining the role of app_id (recipient), dispatch_id (packet identifier), and session_id (recorded against it). It does not fully define parameter formats but adds meaningful semantics beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Accept') and resource ('dispatch packet'), and clearly states the action: flips status pending → working and records session_id. It is easily distinguished from siblings like dispatch_send, dispatch_read, and dispatch_list.

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 explicit workflow guidance: read the brief with dispatch_read first, close out with handoff_write_v4 when done. Also clarifies refusal conditions (wrong_recipient, invalid_transition), making it clear when not to use this tool.

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