aiworkhub_agent_launch_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the dual env gates, that it starts a shell-free child process, the full validation chain (task card, runner, topic, pending state, write scope, collision guard, adapter, process limit), and that timeout_seconds does not enforce a wall-clock deadline. It omits what happens on failure and the irreversibility of launching a live process.

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?

Front-loads the dual-gate constraint and the core action in the first sentence, then handles optional-parameter semantics in a compact block. A few parentheticals (e.g. the 'launcher refused any value that differed' aside) are denser than necessary but still informative.

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?

It references launch_identity_derivation in the reply, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out. But for a process-launching side-effecting tool with no annotations, gaps around model/owner_prompt meaning and failure behavior leave the picture incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, yet the description explains the non-obvious ones (runner, topic, adapter_id optionality and derivation precedence, timeout_seconds being non-enforcing). It says nothing about model, owner_prompt, or task_id, so a third of the parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'launch one exact local Claude/Codex worker process' for a single task. That is clearly distinguishable from the read-only launch-queue siblings and from task-creation tools. It does not name alternatives explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives prerequisites (both AIWORKHUB_ALLOW_LAUNCH=1 and AIWORKHUB_ALLOW_WRITES=1) and explains when to omit vs pass runner/topic/adapter_id. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like aiworkhub_task_queue_request or aiworkhub_launch_queue_evaluate_readonly, so usage is only implied.

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