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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the required contributor token and Orbit write permission are auth requirements not encoded anywhere else. The idempotency-key mention partly duplicates idempotentHint, and nothing is said about failure behavior on key reuse.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite block second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the auth prerequisites are covered, but the description omits what a successful call returns, how orbit_id scopes the task, and what happens if the idempotency key is reused. Adequate but with clear gaps for a write operation.

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 only 25% (just idempotency_key), so the description must compensate. It hints at 'objective' as the task's objective and echoes the idempotency-key requirement, but title and orbit_id are never explained and no parameter is given format or constraint detail beyond the schema. This leaves most parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a shared task') plus the key payload ('with an objective'), so it is clearly distinguishable from write-ish siblings like create_checkpoint and create_handoff. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It lists real prerequisites (contributor token, Orbit write permission, idempotency key) which help an agent confirm it is allowed to call the tool. However, there is no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g., create_handoff, accept_handoff) and no statement of when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the required inputs.

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