mcp_qwen_submit_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the orchestrator-only role, the strict no-paraphrasing rule, the need to collect and pass full context, and the mandatory 60-second timer polling behavior. This goes beyond the schema and reveals important operational consequences (async delegation, external Qwen Studio/API involvement).

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 contains essential information but is somewhat verbose and repetitive, especially the all-caps rule about not paraphrasing which echoes the schema description. The purpose is front-loaded, but the length and emphatic formatting make it less concise than it could be.

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?

The description covers the core workflow: what to pass, how to behave as orchestrator, and the mandatory polling loop. It does not explicitly describe the returned task_id or failure/error handling, but the reference to mcp_qwen_check_status(task_id) strongly implies it. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats the parameter guidance already in the schema (e.g., original unmodified user_prompt, passing skills_content). It adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Делегирует задачу субагенту Qwen 3.8 Max' (delegates a task to the Qwen subagent). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from the sibling tools such as check_status, continue_task, and verify_task.

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 strong workflow instructions: pass the original prompt unmodified, gather context, and poll via mcp_qwen_check_status after invoking. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like mcp_qwen_continue_task or mcp_qwen_verify_task, leaving the selection criteria implied.

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