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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), it discloses non-obvious behaviors: a same-name task on the project is returned instead of duplicating (and reopened if closed), ambiguous project names return candidates and create nothing, and the result carries the undo call. The dedupe/reopen behavior is consistent with idempotentHint=false since the repeated call does mutate state.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core add-scope statement, each carrying distinct information (project resolution, ownership, dedupe/undo, example utterance). Slightly padded by the natural-language example sentence and a small overlap with the output schema, keeping it off a 5.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the operation, ownership defaults, project resolution ambiguity, duplicate/reopen semantics, and a pointer to the inverse operation. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing, and return-value detail is appropriately left to the output schema.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that project accepts a code (e.g. "RISE") or name, that assignee takes "me" or a roster name, and the exact assigneeRef form used by undo. It adds genuine meaning over the schema's short one-liners.

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+resource ('Adds a task') and immediately scopes it: on a project by projectId/code/name, or on no project, owned by the signed-in person unless an assignee is named. This is enough to distinguish it from create_tasks_from_meeting, update_task, and delete_task without opening any schema.

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 clear context for when the tool applies (signed-in person's own task, project resolution by code or name, dedupe/reopen behavior) and states the mutual exclusion of assignee vs assigneeRef. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or a when-not condition, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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