submit_long_running_task

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the tool is asynchronous (returns task_id immediately), tasks persist across disconnects, and explicitly mentions the polling pattern. The idempotentHint=true annotation is consistent, and no contradictions are present.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the response, and providing polling guidance. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 an asynchronous task submission tool with a nested params object, the description provides the essential flow but lacks details on error handling, response format (beyond 'task_id'), and constraints on the params object. Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage (only operation has a description), the description should compensate but does not. It lists operation examples but fails to explain the meaning and structure of the 'params' object, or the purpose of 'title' and 'description'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Submit' and the resource 'durable long-running MCP Task', with explicit examples (backtest, optimization, ML retrain). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_task_status by mentioning polling, and from potentially overlapping tools like run_backtest by emphasizing durability and persistence across disconnects.

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 explicitly instructs to use get_task_status for polling after submission, which provides clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives for similar tasks (e.g., run_backtest) or when to avoid this tool, leaving some gaps in comparative guidance.

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