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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only but non-destructive write, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the task is queued even when no authorized instance is connected, enqueueing is idempotent, and no delivery is reported until a result exists. That is exactly the kind of async/consistency context an agent needs.

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 short sentences, action first, then the disconnected-instance case, then the idempotency and result-reporting guarantees. Nothing is padded, though the middle sentence could be tightened.

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?

Queueing and result-reporting semantics are well covered for a submission tool with no output schema. However, with a required 'id' parameter of unknown meaning and no statement of what the call yields (a mission id? a queued status?), an agent still lacks the information to call it confidently or interpret the response.

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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. It is ambiguous whether 'id' is the task id, a mission id, or a MonAssocié instance id, and the description does nothing to resolve that.

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 concrete two-step action on a named resource: 'Enregistrer puis soumettre une tâche à MonAssocié'. That is more specific than the sibling save_task/run_task pair, which the agent could otherwise confuse with this tool. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 operational conditions ('si aucune instance autorisée n'est connectée, la mission attend sa connexion') but never says when to choose this over save_task, run_task, or get_task_monassocie_mission. Usage is inferable from the queueing semantics rather than stated.

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