Start Lyzr Task

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the crucial async nature and the return of a task_id for polling, but does not mention side effects beyond task submission, error behavior, or execution guarantees. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the action and result in a compact, scannable format.

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's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description provides enough to understand the core flow: submit a task, get an ID, poll for status. It lacks detail on failure modes or timeouts, but for a straightforward async submission tool, it is largely 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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only explains the overall flow.

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 action ('Submit'), the resource ('a long-running task to a Lyzr agent'), and the key output ('Returns a task_id to poll with lyzr_get_task_status'). This distinguishes it from synchronous chat tools like lyzr_chat and the subsequent polling tool lyzr_get_task_status.

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 indicates this is for long-running tasks and that status must be polled, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the contrast with polling is implied.

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