submit_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the task is automatically saved to local persistent storage, which is helpful, but omits other behavioral traits like asynchronicity, authentication needs, or side effects beyond persistence.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, followed by key requirements and behavior. No extraneous information is present.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, required parameters, return value, and persistence. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values further. However, it could mention asynchronicity or rate limits for full completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description merely restates the requirement of these parameters without adding meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'node_info_list' as a list of objects is already in the schema.

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 'Submit an AI application task,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node_info and list_tasks by being the only creation tool, and mentions required parameters and return value.

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 specifies required parameters (webapp_id, node_info_list) and explains the return value (taskId) for subsequent status queries. While it implicitly contrasts with siblings (e.g., sync_task_status for status), it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative mentions.

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