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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: creating twice makes two tasks, and assigning a user may trigger a notification based on account settings.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the write action and followed by the most relevant behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 create tool with nine parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action, optional relationships, notification side effect, and non-idempotency. It could mention what the response contains, but the core behavior is sufficiently described.

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 78%, with most meaningful parameters already documented in the schema. The description adds the optional linkage concept and notification implication for assigned_to_id, but does not add format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema largely provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'create a task.' It also clarifies optional linking to five entity types and signals this is a write operation, making it clearly distinct from get/update/list task siblings.

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 gives clear context for creating a new task and notes optional reference linking and assignment notification. It does not explicitly name update_task or list_tasks as alternatives, but the create-vs-update distinction is clear from the verb and WRITE label.

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