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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the in-app notification to the assignee, conditional Google Calendar insertion and emailed invitation, and the exact retry semantics of idempotencyKey (same key returns the first result rather than acting twice). It also flags CRM field values as untrusted data, which no structured field conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered guidance. The calendar/email sentence is dense and mixes 'activity' with 'task' terminology, but every sentence still carries actionable information.

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 multi-side-effect mutation with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers assignment rules, notifications, calendar/email effects, idempotency, and an injection warning. It does not explain why destructiveHint is set, leaving that flag only in annotations.

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 only 13% across 8 params, the description carries the burden and does: it explains assigneeId's valid source, idempotencyKey usage, and linkedRecord's 'one record you may view' constraint. It leaves title, priority, and description unexplained, though those are largely self-evident.

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+resource ('Creates a task') and adds scope detail (optionally linked to one record you may view, assigned to you by default). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like create_activity or add_comment, which a reader must infer.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance: assigneeId must be an id from list_record_owners, never invented, and only set to another member on the user's explicit instruction; a fresh idempotencyKey per task. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over sibling creation tools.

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