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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is a write operation, it hits POST /tasks, and crucially that no outbound communication reaches the contact. It does not discuss whether re-creating produces duplicates, which the non-idempotent hint implies.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation and its scope front-loaded, and no redundant restatement of the name or title. Every clause (task kinds, optional attachment, assignment, no-contact-send, endpoint) carries distinct information.

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?

With 7 parameters, two enums, no nested objects, and full schema coverage, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call the tool correctly. The one gap is the return value: with no output schema, the agent is not told whether the created task (and its id) is returned, which matters for chaining into update_task. Otherwise complete.

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 every parameter is already documented in detail, including defaults and the attachable_id/attachable_type pairing. The description reinforces that attachment is optional and names the type options, but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (task), enumerates the task kinds (to-do, call, email, visit), and clarifies the optional attachment/assignment dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling creators like create_note or create_deal, and the 'Nothing is sent to the contact' clause separates it from any messaging action.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent knows this is the tool for making a task, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over update_task, create_note, or list_calendar_events. The 'Nothing is sent to the contact' note is a useful scoping hint but is not a when/when-not routing rule.

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