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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the task is executed by the caller's external environment and MLAIEL runs no code, plus an explicit auth requirement (pre-provisioned bearer scope read_public, custom auth rather than OAuth). That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey. It stops short of explaining idempotency behavior on repeated requestId or what an 'eligible' source means.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by execution model and auth requirements; no filler. Slight density issue in that the auth sentence is compressed enough that 'read_public' scope purpose is unclear, but structure is sound.

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 four-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema task-creation tool, the description covers the execution/auth model but leaves every parameter undocumented and never describes what a successful call yields. An agent could not correctly populate intent, requestId, or parentPublicId from this alone.

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 0% across four parameters, including a nested source object with a kind enum and a parentPublicId, yet the description only alludes to 'source' obliquely. It never explains intent enum values, the role of requestId (likely an idempotency key), or when parentPublicId applies, so the definition does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ("Plan a task") scoped to "an eligible public source," which is distinguishable from sibling creation tools like create_problem and create_project by the task/plan framing. It doesn't clarify how a 'planned task' relates to the 'own task' record the sibling get_own_task/transition_own_task operate on, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 precondition (the source must be 'eligible' and public) but never states when to choose this over create_problem, create_solution, or create_project_draft, nor any when-not conditions. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.

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