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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully explains the provenance of that behavior: it requires an idempotency key, exact-intent confirmation, and a current revision when mutating an existing record. It adds entitlement gating ('Startup or higher, both read and write consent') beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly packed, but every sentence contributes a distinct constraint (workflow, prerequisites, revision rule).

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the entitlement, consent, idempotency, and revision preconditions. It omits how project_id scopes the task and how this preparation links to the execute_action step that ultimately creates the task.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It does explain idempotency_key and the confirmation_token concept ('exact-intent confirmation'), and hints at revision handling, but leaves project_id and the nested data/payload fields (title, due_date, owner_user_id) unexplained.

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 and resource ('Prepare a durable action that creates one canonical project task') and clarifies it is a prepare step occurring 'after separate approval and execution', which implicitly separates it from the execute/approve siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 concrete usage conditions: requires Startup tier, read+write consent, a stable idempotency key, and exact-intent confirmation, plus the rule to 'read current state and use its current revision when changing an existing record'. It does not name alternative tools for the same goal, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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