Run a task now

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false. The description adds critical behavioral nuance: it returns as soon as the task is dispatched, not when the task completes, and outcome observation requires polling list_tasks. This goes beyond annotation defaults, though it does not cover failure conditions for non-queued tasks.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by key return behavior. Every word contributes; no filler or redundancy.

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 a simple action tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (dispatch), return timing, and follow-up method. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites beyond 'queued', but this is acceptable for a tool of this complexity.

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%, with task_id fully documented as coming from list_tasks or create_task. The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter (e.g., format or validation), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('a queued task') and clearly distinguishes the action from waiting for a scheduled slot. It also differentiates from sibling tools like create_task (creating) and list_tasks (listing), 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 states when to use the tool ('instead of waiting for its scheduled slot') and directs users to poll list_tasks for outcomes, providing follow-up guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the implicit contrast is sufficient for most use cases.

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