Submit Chat Task

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the async/non-blocking nature and the need to poll for results. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description complements this without contradiction.

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 with no redundant content. It communicates the action, target, and return value efficiently.

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 flow (submit, get task_id, poll) and is largely complete given the detailed schema. Minor gaps exist: it doesn't explicitly name the polling tool (lyzr_get_chat_task_status) or clarify the relationship between 'message' and 'messages', but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description doesn't need to add parameter details. It doesn't, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load for parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool submits a chat message to an agent as an async task and returns a task_id for polling. This distinguishes it from synchronous chat siblings like lyzr_chat and lyzr_stream_chat.

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 explicitly mentions 'async task' and 'returns a task_id to poll', providing clear context for when to use this tool over synchronous alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guideline coverage.

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