aiworkhub_task_queue_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden well: it names the write gate env var, states the tool never launches processes, and documents idempotency and per-runner dedup rules. It stops short of describing failure modes or what the appended record looks like, though an output schema 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the write-gated framing and the core guarantee (never launches). Some internal jargon ("B286 MVP", ``LAUNCH_IMPLEMENTED``) adds noise, but nothing is badly redundant.

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?

Behavioral/gating context is strong and an output schema covers returns, but for an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the parameter surface is a significant unexplained gap. Adequate on behavior, incomplete on inputs.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only task_id and runner get any semantics (dedup/ownership); topic, adapter_id, priority, model, argv_template, stale_timeout_seconds, owner_prompt, and request_id are entirely unexplained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("append a disabled launch-queue request") and explicitly negates launching ("It never launches a process"), which separates it from launcher siblings like aiworkhub_agent_launch_task. It never names a sibling alternative by name, so it stops 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?

Gives concrete preconditions for effect vs. no effect: with AIWORKHUB_ALLOW_WRITES unset it appends nothing, and it skips when the request is idempotent or another runner already owns an open request for the same task_id. It does not say which sibling tool to use when this one is a no-op, so no explicit alternatives.

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