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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world creation operation. The description adds the custom-field schema prerequisite, but it does not explain permissions, side effects, or how linking interacts with existing people/company records.

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?

The description is two short sentences and front-loads the main action. The second sentence provides a practical prerequisite without unnecessary detail.

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 a rich input schema, full parameter descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and custom-field prerequisite. It is slightly incomplete regarding sibling-tool selection and linking strategy, but those gaps are partly covered by the schema and tool names.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions only custom fields and repeats the crm-schema requirement already present in the schema; it adds little parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a new task in the CRM. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools such as list-tasks-tool, update-task-tool, delete-task-tool, and attach-task-to-entities-tool by naming the create action on the task entity.

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?

It gives a useful prerequisite for custom_fields by directing the agent to the crm-schema resource. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus attach-task-to-entities-tool or whether links should be provided at creation time versus attached afterward.

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