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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real behavior: asynchronous execution with an immediate taskId return, the queued→running→done state progression, a specific failure mode (403 PARALLEL_TASKS_DISABLED), and the registered-user JWT auth requirement. It stops short of describing what happens to a task on failure or how results are retrieved afterward.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core action and async semantics, then attach the error and auth constraints parenthetically. Every clause carries operational information and there is no 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential async contract, auth requirement, and a known error code. The notable gap is not telling the agent how to follow up on the returned taskId (actora_gateway_get_task) or listing any other error conditions.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema, including the inline-prompt vs agent_id tradeoff and the BYOK tenant_key_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that access_token is a required registered-user JWT, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a background task in a session") and immediately contrasts it with synchronous behavior via "returns immediately with taskId". This implicitly separates it from actora_gateway_chat, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation depends on inference.

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 word "background" plus the immediate-return note implies this is for long-running work that should not block, which is usable guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not clause and no pointer to alternatives like actora_gateway_chat for synchronous turns or actora_gateway_get_task for polling results.

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