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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds nothing about permissions, side effects, or what the created record looks like. 'Copper REST: POST /tasks' merely restates that this is a write call, which the annotations already imply. It does not explain the odd destructiveHint on a create operation or the linked-resource attachment behavior.

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 very short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The REST endpoint fragment is arguably developer noise rather than agent-facing value, but it is brief and does not bury the main statement.

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 mutation tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description omits required-vs-optional hints, the record-attachment semantics, and any indication of what is returned. An agent can call it, but only by reading the schema blind to the tool's operational context.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema (including the coupled related_resource_id/related_resource_type pair). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new task'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create tools (create_company, create_lead, etc.) by object type. It does not differentiate by behavior or scope beyond the noun, so it stays 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that an assignee_id must be a valid user, or that attaching to a record needs both related fields), and no mention of alternatives such as copper_search_tasks or copper_get_task. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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