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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'WRITE:' prefix is consistent with that rather than merely repeating it. It adds the useful disambiguation that job_id is the internal id, not the job number, but discloses nothing about side effects such as notifications to assigned employees, permission requirements, or reversibility of the assignment replacement.

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 with the operating mode, resource, scope, ID provenance, and the underlying endpoint all front-loaded and no filler. Every clause 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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers ID sourcing and write-mode but omits what the call returns (presumably a task id needed for later kickserv_get_task/update calls) and how the three time-related parameters relate. Adequate but leaving real gaps.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the job_number caveat that the description restates. The description adds no meaning about how scheduled_at, ends_at, and duration interact, so with the schema doing all the work, the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('create a task (appointment / to-do) on a job') and adds scope ('optionally assign employees'), plus the WRITE prefix. An agent can distinguish it from kickserv_create_job, kickserv_create_customer, and kickserv_get_task without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent to the correct source for the two non-obvious IDs (job_id from kickserv_get_job, employee_ids from kickserv_list_employees), which is exactly the context needed before calling. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or stating what to do if the job has no tasks (e.g. create_job instead).

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