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

Annotations only indicate it is a non-read, non-destructive operation mirroring a create. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the task is visible on the team-wide Tasks view, can stand alone or link to a person/company/deal, and will not send a due-date notification.

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?

Well-structured with a summary and return section, front-loading the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds value-the examples, link behavior, team visibility, and no-alarm caveat are all useful and no redundant filler exists.

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 7-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return shape ('same shape as query_crm_tasks row'), clarifies visibility, linking options, and due-date behavior. The schema covers parameter syntax, so nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with helpful descriptions, so the description does not need to re-explain semantics. It adds context about linking to people/companies/deals and the return shape, but these are minor complements to a fully-documented schema.

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 description clearly states it creates a task (a to-do) in the user's CRM-has a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_calendar_event and update_crm_task by emphasizing CRM task semantics and linking to deals/people/companies.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('remind me to send pricing to Jane on Friday') and explicitly warns that this is not an alarm, telling the agent to communicate that limitation. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context and examples make when-to-use reasonably clear.

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