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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints (single-day, no recurrence) and implies a write operation, but it does not mention required authentication (npub, dpop_token are in schema), side effects, or failure modes. It adds some value beyond schema by explaining the design philosophy, but lacks depth on operational behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Create or update one task') followed by the key design constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations), the description explains the core domain model (single-day tasks) but omits operational details like authentication requirements or error handling. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values, but the description could be more complete about prerequisites. Still, it suffices for an agent to understand the tool's intent.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond the schema; it explains the single-day constraint and the reminder_only distinction, but does not elaborate on dpop_token, npub, or how to use task_id for update. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates or updates one task, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from task_delete and task_list by indicating it handles create/update. However, it does not explicitly contrast with task_set_done, which is also a form of update, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly notes the single-day design and absence of recurrence, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its scope, especially given sibling tool names like task_list and task_delete infer alternatives.

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