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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the permission requirements (dvs:write plus full write on the register), the side effect of possibly notifying assigned users, and a prompt-injection warning that DVS text is data not instructions. The non-idempotency hint is backed by concrete retry guidance, which the annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Roughly five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, required inputs, side effects, permissions, and safety rules. The most important constraints (required fields) are front-loaded after the purpose statement.

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 non-idempotent mutation with a single nested parameter object and no output schema, the description covers inputs, permissions, side effects, and safe-retry behavior well. It does not say what a successful call returns (e.g., a task ID), which would help an agent chain a follow-up read.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it names the two fields that are actually mandatory inside the nested create_params object and points to filesfm_dvs_get_fields as the source of valid field names and option IDs. It stops short of describing value formats or validation behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Create a DVS task") and immediately names the two required fields, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like filesfm_dvs_update_task, but the create-vs-update distinction is implicit in the verb.

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 states the required inputs (dvs_project_id, name), routes the agent to filesfm_dvs_get_fields for optional fields, and gives an explicit retry rule ("Do not repeat an uncertain write; read the task first"). What is missing is any explicit "use X instead when..." comparison against the update sibling.

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