delegate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the leadership requirement but fails to disclose whether delegation is destructive, affects other sessions, or has rate limits. This is minimal context for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficient but could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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 4-parameter schema with 0% description coverage and the presence of an output schema (unreferenced), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, return value hints, and usage context beyond the leadership constraint.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters (title, detail, to_sid, priority). The agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action ('assign'), the resource ('work item'), and constraints ('Leader-only', 'to a secondary session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like broadcast or poll_inbox which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage is restricted to leaders but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delegate instead of broadcast). The 'Leader-only' prefix is helpful but insufficient.

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