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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. It adds the POST endpoint and optional-field context, but does not cover side effects such as invalid assignee handling, permissions, or what happens on duplicate submission. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It identifies the action, optional fields, and endpoint efficiently. The structure is appropriate for a simple create tool.

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 low-complexity create tool with a fully described schema and annotations covering mutation behavior, the description is largely complete. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists, and the omission is minor. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including formats and constraints. The description mentions optional description, due date, and assignee fields, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a task.' It also enumerates the optional attributes that can be supplied, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as aryeo_complete_task or aryeo_update_order_notes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says what can be created but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the tool for creating a new task rather than completing, listing, or retrieving one.

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