submit_async_task

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying 'allowlisted', 'long-running', and 'background'. However, it does not disclose the return value, how to monitor progress, or what happens on completion. Annotations already indicate it's a safe read, so the added value is moderate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of 8 words with no redundancy. It directly states the action, resource, and constraints, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description does not cover important aspects like parameter details, workflow after submission, or relation to sibling tools like 'get_async_task'. It is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and async behavior.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains the 'operation' parameter only implicitly ('allowlisted read operation') and does not clarify 'params' or 'instance' parameters. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 runs an allowlisted, long-running read operation in the background. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('allowlisted long-running read operation'), which distinguishes it from synchronous read tools like 'read_record' or 'search_records'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., synchronous read, other async task tools). It implies usage for long-running reads but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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