a2a_submit_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new task is created with an initial message, but does not mention whether the call is asynchronous, what the response looks like, whether the task starts immediately, or any side effects like requiring the agents to be registered. This is minimal disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core action and purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a fairly simple submission tool.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the caller receives in return (e.g., task ID), how to track the task via sibling tools like a2a_get_task or a2a_list_tasks, or any prerequisites or failure modes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate reliably.

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 already describes all 5 parameters clearly (message, metadata, to_agent, from_agent, session_id), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minor context by calling the message an 'initial message', but does not otherwise explain parameter relationships or edge cases, so it remains at the schema-driven baseline.

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 'submit' and names the resource 'a task to another agent via the A2A protocol'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like a2a_get_task, a2a_cancel_task, and a2a_respond_task, which handle other parts of the task lifecycle.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as msg_send or a2a_respond_task, nor any exclusions. The only hint is the tool name and the list of siblings, but the description itself does not articulate the appropriate context or trade-offs.

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