dispatch_accept

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the exact state mutation, the recording of session_id, and refusal conditions with error tokens wrong_recipient and invalid_transition. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model of what will and won't happen when the tool is called.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the failure modes, and the surrounding workflow. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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?

For an accept-operation with no output schema, the description covers the state change, error conditions, prerequisites, and next step. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and to recover from expected refusals.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies dispatch_id as the packet being accepted, app_id as the recipient that must match, and session_id as the value recorded against the packet. This is useful, though it stops short of explicitly mapping each parameter by name to its purpose.

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 and resource: 'Accept a dispatch packet addressed to you' and precisely defines the effect: 'flips its status pending → working and records your session_id against it.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like dispatch_read, dispatch_list, and dispatch_send.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Read the brief with dispatch_read first; close out with handoff_write_v4 when the work is done.' It also states the prerequisite condition—use it only for packets addressed to you—and names the closing sibling, so an agent knows when and with what to pair this tool.

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