agent_dispatch_result

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, which matches the mutating `attach` action Mendescribes. The description adds the not_found error behavior and return shape, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects beyond updating the routing row (e.g., whether it overwrites prior results, effects on downstream processes), so behavior is only partially transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the parameters tied to their purpose, the return payload, and the error case. No waste.

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 simple shape scrap (4 params, no nested objects), the description covers the outcome attachment semanticallycourt, the return value (including the not_found error), and names the companion agent_route tool as the relationship. It omits only the role of `app_id`, which is reasonably inferable as a namespace/filter, and there is no output schema to carry return-type details.

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 has 0% coverageaving no property descriptions. The description clarifies `routing_id` (identifies the row), `result` (outcome text), and `status` (e.g. 'done'/'failed'), but `app_id` is left undefined. It adds value but not fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('attach the outcome...result text plus status') targeting a specific resource (the routing_decisions row identified by routing_id). It clearly connects to its upstream agent_route tool and is distinct from siblings like dispatch_send or agent_clear.

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 explains when to use the tool ('close the loop on an agent_route call') which gives clear context, but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with any alternative (e.g., dispatch_* or store_update). No exclusions or conditional guidance.

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