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

The annotations already signal mutation via readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation is limited to PREPARING drafts and returns a new taskId. It does not describe error behavior or side effects beyond task creation, but for a create operation the added constraints are meaningful.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently packages required fields, optional fields, return value, and a state constraint. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the expected return value (new taskId), the required/optional split, and a critical state restriction. It is slightly incomplete because parameter semantics are thin and it does not explain what happens if the use case is not PREPARING, but the essential invocation requirements are present.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only enumerates field names already present in the schema and restates that title is required, without explaining what successCriteria, observationPoints, probingQuestions, or the boolean flags actually mean. An agent must rely on naming conventions rather than concrete guidance.

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 states a clear action ('Add a task') and the target resource ('to a use case'), with a helpful summary of required/optional fields and return value. It does not explicitly contrast with update_task or delete_task, but the create operation is distinct enough from the sibling names that an agent can tell it apart.

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 a clear contextual constraint: 'Only works on use cases of PREPARING drafts.' This tells the agent when the tool can be used and implicitly when it cannot. It does not name alternative tools for other workflows, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use routing, but the guidance is stronger than mere implication.

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