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

With annotations present the bar is lower, and the description adds useful context: the return shape ({ TaskId }), the optional contact attachment, and the date-only semantics. It does not contradict destructiveHint=true (a create that writes new data), though it doesn't explain that hint either.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and alternative, then return value and API mapping. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return value ({ TaskId }), and all six parameters are documented in the schema. Annotations cover the safety profile, leaving little an agent would need that isn't already present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stressing 'date only, no time' for the due date and framing contact_id as an optional attachment. These are semantic constraints not fully captured by the property descriptions alone.

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 explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling lacrm_create_event for timed items. An agent can tell what it creates and how it differs from the closest alternative 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('use lacrm_create_event for timed things') and clarifies the date-only nature, which drives the choice. It stops short of covering when to prefer lacrm_edit_task or other task siblings, so it's clear context without full exclusion coverage.

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