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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description doesn't explain what is destroyed or what permissions are needed. It restates three required fields and the endpoint, adding no behavioral context (e.g., side effects, whether related_id must exist, rate limits). For a mutating create tool, this is thin.

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?

Single efficient sentence plus endpoint, front-loaded with the core action and required fields. No redundant prose. Slightly cramped due to the parenthetical clauses, but earns its place.

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 10-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers required fields and endpoint, but omits return behavior, error conditions, and any prerequisite relationships (e.g., related_id must be an existing contact/job). Annotations only flag destructiveHint, leaving much unsaid.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters including units and constraints. The description adds only marginal field clarification (date_start as unix seconds, record_type_name example) that is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a task or appointment') and the API endpoint (POST /tasks). It differentiates from siblings like create_contact/create_job by calling out the 'appointment' variant and the record_type_name constraint. No explicit sibling routing, but purpose is clear.

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?

No when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent whether to use create_task vs creating an activity, nor does it reference any sibling. It only restates requirements already implied by the schema's required array.

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