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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal. The description compensates by disclosing that the call returns immediately with codeAgentTaskId and queued status, does not stream or wait, and that queuePosition appears while waiting for a sandbox. It also tells the agent to poll the status separately. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention potential side effects on the task object itself (e.g., state changes), which are implied but not explicit.

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 well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose and async behavior, then gives usage context, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the most critical facts for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the asynchronous return, the need to poll via get_coding_agent_status, the prerequisite of an existing task, and clarifies parameter selection (taskId vs taskKey, extraPrompt vs instructions). An agent has all the information needed to invoke it correctly without further investigation.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is described in the schema. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it clarifies mutual exclusivity ('Provide exactly one of taskId or taskKey'), explains the lookup behavior for taskKey, notes that extraPrompt and instructions are aliases, and mentions tier default when omitted. This enriches parameter understanding without repetition.

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 and resource: 'Assign a standalone task to mFlow's autonomous coding agent for asynchronous execution.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the task must already exist (create_standalone_task first if it doesn't) and by referencing polling get_coding_agent_status separately, so an agent can tell it apart from create and get operations.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this once you've decided a task is ready for implementation and want to delegate the "how" rather than doing it yourself.' It also names the prerequisite (task must exist, create_standalone_task first) and the alternative for status (poll get_coding_agent_status), leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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