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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds only the raw endpoint (POST /tasks). It does not say whether the task is auto-assigned to a user, whether reminders/notifications fire, what permissions are needed, or what a caller gets back. For a write operation with a destructive hint, this leaves real behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and scope come first and the endpoint reference is a compact footnote. Nothing redundant, though the endpoint line is marginal value.

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?

With 5 parameters, a nested passthrough object, no output schema, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is thin but the schema carries the field-level detail. It omits side effects, permissions, and any mention of the 'extra' passthrough, which an agent might need for non-standard Keap fields.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only the optionality of contact linkage and the follow-up/to-do framing, but says nothing about the 'extra' verbatim merge object or due-date expectations.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('CREATE a task') and clarifies scope with 'follow-up / to-do, optionally linked to a contact,' which separates it from keap_get_task and keap_list_tasks. It is clear but does not explicitly name those siblings as the alternatives.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus keap_update_contact, keap_apply_tag, or keap_list_tasks, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only implied guidance is the optional contact linkage.

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