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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the explicit 'MUTATES Accelo data' warning, the underlying endpoint (POST /api/v0/tasks), and that the body is form-encoded. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation warning and the attachment constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information — mutation, prerequisite, transport, response shape — with no redundancy.

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?

Covers the mutation risk, the non-obvious attachment requirement, the endpoint and encoding, and even the response envelope ({ meta, response }) despite no output schema being defined. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 semantic meaning the schema lacks: that against_type and against_id form a mandatory pair expressing an attachment relationship, with example types (job, company, issue). That is more than restating field descriptions.

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 ('creates a new task') and flags the operation as a mutation up front. The clarification that tasks are always attached to an object meaningfully separates it from sibling creators like create_activity, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 supplies a genuine prerequisite — tasks must be logged against an object, so against_type + against_id are mandatory — which tells the agent when the call is valid. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over create_activity or the other sibling create tools.

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