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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it explicitly says the tool opens nothing by itself, that the output is step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, and that Sunsama has no documented public API (checked 6 Nov 2026), which explains why a browser-driven path exists at all.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, and the 'opens nothing by itself' qualifier arrives early enough to prevent misuse. However, the final sentence 'Sunsama's official API: Sunsama has no documented public API' is circularly worded, and the opening 'Create task' framing wastes the most prominent slot on a verb the tool does not actually perform.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the handoff to the browser tools. What is missing is the prerequisite context — that a Sunsama Cloud Browser session/account must already exist — which matters for a tool that explicitly does no work itself.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no schema surface for the description to compensate for. The description adds nothing about inputs, but nothing is missing either.

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 names a specific resource (a Sunsama task) but is split between two identities: the opening 'Create task in the user's own Sunsama account' implies a write action, while 'Returns how to do it in Sunsama step by step ... and opens nothing by itself' reveals it is actually an instruction/guidance tool. An agent can eventually figure out the real purpose, but the headline claim and the actual behavior pull in different directions, and no sibling (e.g. sunsama_add_subtask) is named for comparison.

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 does give a clear follow-on path: get the steps here, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Sunsama Cloud Browser. That is useful routing, but it never states when an agent should prefer this over cotlet_app_guide or the other sunsama_* mutators, so the selection logic is only implied.

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