Start an external worker (async)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external-call nature is covered. The description adds genuine context by declaring asynchronous, isolated execution and the workerId return, but omits failure behavior, cost/latency exposure, and permission implications of the workspace-exec commands.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its async return, followed by the required follow-up call and the key input constraint. No sentence is redundant.

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 14-parameter, non-read-only, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the happy path and polling but leaves the operational surface thin: no mention of cancellation (meah_cancel_agent), workspace cleanup, permissionProfile gating, or dryRun. Adequate, not 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 71%, so most parameter meaning already lives in the schema (role rules, context untrusted-data treatment, command allowlisting). The description only reinforces the context parameter and adds nothing on the cascading role/model/provider overrides or timeout/temperature tuning.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Start ONE isolated external worker' with the async contract ('return immediately with its workerId') stated up front. The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with meah_parallel_agents, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives actionable lifecycle guidance: fire this tool, then 'Poll meah_get_agent for the result', and 'Supply only the context the worker needs'. It does not state when to prefer this over meah_delegate_task or meah_parallel_agents, so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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