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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the single most non-obvious behavior: omitting a date silently files the task in the Inbox rather than erroring. It also discloses the Linear-sync side effect and team-workspace scoping for assignee. It does not state permissions, failure modes, or that creation is not idempotent, keeping it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the default routing rule before the optional-field enumeration. The trailing optional-field list is a long comma chain that duplicates schema content, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 13-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core routing semantics but says nothing about the created task being returned (id, fields) or about how workspace scoping interacts with note/linear linking. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent will hit in practice.

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 69%, so the schema does most of the work, and the description adds real value on date format (YYYY-MM-DD, optional HH:MM). But it omits minutes (default 30), workspace selection, add_subtasks, and the interaction between date and list beyond the parenthetical.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Add a task") and immediately qualifies the two routing outcomes (Inbox vs. planned day). This distinguishes it from update_task and create_event without naming them, though no sibling is called out explicitly.

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 date/no-date branch implicitly tells the agent which variant to use, and the assignee clause scopes team-workspace use. However, there is no explicit "use update_task to modify an existing task" or "use create_event for calendar blocks" guidance, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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