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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the task is 'saved', returns JSON with a slug, and should be followed by run_worker_task using the returned worker_task_id. It lacks auth/error details but provides meaningful extra context.

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?

Section labels (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, WORKFLOW) provide structure, but the Chinese trigger sentence lists many actions (query, run, rerun, stop, export, view) unrelated to creation, and the WHEN NOT TO USE includes boilerplate about internal APIs that adds noise. Reasonably sized but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and next workflow step, which compensates for the missing output schema. It doesn't cover error/auth behavior, but given the schema's parameter coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for a create tool.

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?

Input schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond 'input and optional schedule.' The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not introduce new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Create') on a specific resource ('new saved CoreClaw worker task') with clear scope ('with input and optional schedule'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_worker_task and run_worker_task.

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 includes both WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, advising use when saving a reusable, scheduled task. It references run_worker_task in the workflow but does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_worker_task for editing existing tasks, so it stops short of full 5.

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