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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value the annotations lack: the no-retry guarantee, the duplicate-creation risk, the recommended verification step, and the creator-defaults-to-owner behavior. It stops short of covering permissions/auth or a returned shape.

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?

A single tightly packed paragraph that front-loads the write nature and duplicate risk before the endpoint. Dense but nearly every clause carries actionable information; the trailing URL is the only near-redundant element.

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 15-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behavior (non-idempotency, duplicates), defaults, and id-resolution helpers, while the schema handles per-param detail. Auth/permission expectations are the main remaining gap.

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 15 params, including the required flags and the creator_user_id default that the description restates. The description only adds marginal cross-references (fieldwire_list_project_users), so this sits at the schema-driven baseline.

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?

Opens with 'WRITE: creates a new task in a project', a specific verb+resource, and the write framing cleanly separates it from fieldwire_update_task and the read-only list/get siblings. The endpoint path adds precise scope.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is sent once and never retried, and prescribes recovery: check fieldwire_list_tasks before re-creating to avoid duplicates. It also names required params and routes the agent to fieldwire_list_project_users for id lookup.

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