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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses that referenced entities must already exist (name-resolution failure risk) and that "the assignee may be notified by Getfly" — an unintended-side-effect warning an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the operation class and resource. The endpoint reference is tucked at the end where it belongs.

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 11-parameter creation tool this covers the critical preconditions (entities must exist, values given by name). The main remaining gap is outcome: nothing says what is returned on success (e.g., created task code/ID) so an agent can't tell if chaining is possible, and no output schema compensates.

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 every parameter is already documented in structured form. The description reinforces the naming convention (project/type by NAME, users by login name) which is genuinely useful for correct value selection, but it does not add format, default, or interaction semantics beyond that.

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?

"WRITE: Create a task" names a specific verb and resource, and the qualifiers (optionally in a project, assigned to a user, linked to a customer) delineate the scope precisely. The WRITE prefix plus the resource name makes it trivially distinguishable from sibling creators like getfly_create_ticket or getfly_create_opportunity.

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 implies usage through 'optionally in a project' and the requirement that project/task type exist in Getfly, which quietly conveys prerequisites. But it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as getfly_create_account/getfly_create_ticket, nor any when-not conditions or failure modes.

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