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 the effect on the user's app, the nuanced destination logic (auto fallback, today failure, reserve always queues), and recurrence behavior (returns to top of reserve after completion). It doesn't explicitly mention side effects like list updates or error messages, but the disclosed behavior is thorough for a creation tool.

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 about five sentences, each contributing useful guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and invocation trigger, then details destination options and best practices. No filler or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for a tool with five parameters and nuanced behavior.

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 there is no output schema, the description focuses on input behavior, which is appropriate for a creation tool. It covers all destination cases, recurrence, and parameter guidance. It doesn't mention return values, but for a side-effect operation that is not critical. The sibling tools are clearly different, and the description gives enough to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: it explains the destination enum values' semantics, advises keeping titles 'short and actionable', and clarifies when to include criteria ('only add completion criteria when the task genuinely has sub-steps'). It also elaborates on recurEveryDays behavior. This extra context lifts the score above baseline, though not to 5 since notes and some edge cases remain schema-only.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a task to Signal not Noise' and immediately explains the outcome ('it appears in the user's app'). It also specifies when to invoke it ('Call this when the user asks to add, capture or remember a task'), which differentiates it from the list-oriented siblings (list_reserve, list_todos).

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 gives explicit invocation triggers ('when the user asks to add, capture or remember a task') and provides detailed guidance on destination behavior ('auto' vs 'today' vs 'reserve') including the failure condition for 'today' when full. It also instructs on title style and when to include completion criteria, offering clear decision rules for parameter use.

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