arvan_task_submit

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds value by detailing asynchronous execution, return of a task record, and scheduling behavior (delay, interval, max_runs). It does not mention error handling or resource consumption, but covers essential behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter descriptions in docstring format are informative, though a bullet list might improve readability. Every sentence serves a purpose, but some redundancy exists (e.g., 'now/later/recurring' is restated in parameters).

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 no output schema, the description explains the return (task record with id) and how to track progress (polling or webhook). The parameter set is fully covered. However, it does not specify the exact return structure or error scenarios, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including defaults and the meaning of fields like announce_webhook fallback. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions, enabling correct parameter usage.

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 'Run another tool in the background, now/later/recurring,' specifying the verb 'Run' and the resource 'another tool' with distinct scheduling options. It differentiates from sibling tools that are the tools to be run or task management tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for background execution and scheduling via parameters like delay_seconds and interval_seconds. It mentions polling with arvan_task_status or waiting for webhook, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus directly calling a tool. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are provided, but the context is clear enough for typical use.

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