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

The 'WRITE:' prefix and POST /task endpoint disclose that this is a mutating call, which is the main behavioral fact. However, it says nothing about the notification side effect (deferred entirely to the schema), required permissions, or whether the new task is returned. Annotations carry only destructiveHint, so the description could do more.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the write operation and its scope come first, followed by the ID-sourcing hint and the endpoint. The 'Bloomerang: POST /task' tail is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the relationship fields but never says what is returned (e.g., the new task ID) or mentions the send_notifications side effect, leaving the agent to infer the response shape.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining how to source the non-obvious assignee_user_id and by framing constituent_id/assignee_user_id as optional relationships.

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 ('create a follow-up task') plus scope modifiers (optionally tied to a constituent, assigned to a user). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling bloomerang_list_tasks and the other create_* tools, which target different resources.

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?

Provides a useful routing hint for obtaining assignee IDs ('find user Ids via bloomerang_get_current_user or existing tasks'), but gives no guidance on when to create a task versus a sibling create tool such as bloomerang_create_interaction or bloomerang_create_note, nor any prerequisites.

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