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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/idempotency safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — no customer notification is triggered — plus the backing endpoint (POST /tasks). It says nothing about duplicate-creation behavior, assignment side effects, or required scopes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operative mode ('WRITE:') and the resource front-loaded. The trailing 'POST /tasks' is terse reference metadata rather than padding.

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 full schema coverage, four annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it makes, that it is a write, and that it has no customer-visible effect. Auth/permission requirements and error or validation behavior are the only meaningful omissions.

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%, and every parameter (name, action, user_id, due_date, customer_id) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The parenthetical 'call, write, email or review' loosely mirrors the action enum values but adds no syntax, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 collection task for a customer') and even defines the resource in domain terms — a reminder to call, write, email or review. An agent can tell this apart from the read-only getters and listers in the sibling set, though it does not explicitly contrast with invoiced_add_note, the closest ambiguous sibling.

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 only implied: the domain gloss and the caveat 'Nothing is sent to the customer' tell the agent this is an internal reminder rather than an outbound communication. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. add_note vs create_task vs create_draft_invoice), so routing depends on inference.

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