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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: the date-only (no time) constraint, the optional contact linkage, the return shape { TaskId } (valuable since there is no output schema), and the underlying API mapping. It omits permission/authorization notes and what happens on invalid dates, but the destructiveHint annotation plus the stated writes cover the core profile.

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 tightly-packed sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded, and the return-shape note trails 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?

Six parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema — so the description usefully compensates with the { TaskId } return note and the date-only rule. It stops short of mentioning required vs optional fields or failure behavior, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented with format hints (yyyy-mm-dd, string-only Uids, defaults). The description only reinforces the date-only semantics, which the schema itself already implies. 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 to-do on a user's task list') and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, lacrm_create_event, by scoping to date-only items. An agent can separate it from lacrm_edit_task and lacrm_list_tasks 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule — use lacrm_create_event for timed things — and clarifies the optional contact attachment. It does not address when to prefer a note (lacrm_create_note) or pipeline item instead, but the primary disambiguation is present and clear.

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