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

Annotations already disclose this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating it generates and returns a stable task id and warns that column_id must exist. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it does not mention any side effects or error conditions beyond the column requirement.

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 dense paragraph but remains efficient, with each sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then details parameters. It could be improved with bullet points, but it is not unnecessarily verbose.

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 has 11 parameters, moderate schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides essential behavioral and parameter context. It explains return behavior (stable id), required column existence, and parameter formats, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly. Minor gaps like error handling or board_id semantics do not significantly reduce 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?

With schema coverage at 55%, the description compensates well for several parameters: it explains column_id's requirement, description's free-form nature, priority's enum and omission, due_date's ISO format, assignee's free-text, and sort's float ordering and default. It does omit board_id and name, but these are relatively obvious from the tool name and context. The added parameter details go beyond 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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a task (card) in a column on a todo board.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (task), distinguishes from sibling 'create_tasks' by specifying a single task, and adds the valuable detail that it returns a stable task id.

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 context by noting that 'column_id must reference an existing column (see list_tasks)' and details parameter semantics, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'create_tasks' or 'create_column'. It implies usage for single-task creation but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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