dispatch_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses side effects: writes meta.json and assignment.md, sets status to 'pending', and returns metadata with dispatch_id. It also reveals the backend behavior (filesystem vs. Postgres-backed) and the authority envelope/quota gate. This is rich behavioral detail beyond the basic purpose.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, key parameters, lifecycle, storage exception, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main objective. It is slightly long, but not wasteful, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains side effects, storage variants, state transitions, and the return value. The main gap is incomplete parameter semantics for several params, but overall it provides enough context to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain `assignment_md` (the full brief) and `reply_to` (who verifies the handoff), and 'assigning work to another agent' implies `to_app`. However, the remaining five parameters (role, phase, summary, priority, context_refs) are not semantically defined anywhere, leaving significant gaps.

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: 'Create a dispatch packet assigning work to another agent.' It specifies the resource (dispatch packet) and the verb (create), and the details about writing meta.json + assignment.md distinguish it from siblings like dispatch_read, dispatch_list, and dispatch_accept.

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 provides clear workflow context: the packet advances pending → working → complete via dispatch_accept and handoff_write_v4, indicating when this tool is used in the lifecycle. It also mentions a special authority-envelope condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other operations, so it falls short of a 5.

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