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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: bodies and human answers are readable by anyone with the task URL, secrets should not be sent, and task lifetime ranges from 60 seconds to 24 hours. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it defines what the tool does, specifies when to use it, states the duration limit, and includes an important security caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The input schema and output schema already cover parameter and return details, so the description can focus on lifecycle, security, and intent, which it does. It adequately covers the usage scenario and important caveats, though it could have named sibling tools like create_human_approval or create_webhook_capture to further guide selection.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond grouping the event types, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: creating a durable MCP task that completes on a webhook, form answer, or time event. It is specific about the resource and behavior, and the three event types make it easy to distinguish from the read-focused sibling tools. It does not explicitly name the overlapping create_human_approval or create_webhook_capture tools, so it slightly misses the chance to differentiate itself from them.

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 provides explicit guidance: "Use it when an agent must pause and continue after an outside event without holding one HTTP request open." This gives a clear usage context. It does not describe when not to use it or refer directly to sibling alternatives, but the stated condition is actionable.

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