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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the useful conceptual point that the new list is a container for tasks, but says nothing about duplicate titles, permissions, or whether the created list becomes active — all relevant for a create operation with zero annotation detail beyond the safety flags.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the clarifying concept. No filler, though the em-dash clause is slightly informal and the second sentence could be tightened.

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 simple, fully specified two-parameter create tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs to select it. The one gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could say whether the new list's identifier is returned for follow-up calls.

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 100% — the title and account parameters are both fully documented in the input schema, including the default-account fallback. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new task list") and then defines what the resource is ("the container tasks live in"), which cleanly separates it from gws-mcp__tasks_create, which makes tasks rather than lists. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 a concrete selection condition: use it when a workflow needs its own list rather than adding to '@default'. That is real when-to-use guidance with an implied alternative (the default list). It stops short of explicit when-not or naming sibling tools for cross-checking.

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