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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the non-idempotency fact is pre-disclosed. The description's value is in the actionable consequence ('do not retry blindly') and the permission prerequisite, but it adds nothing about what the new task record contains or what is returned.

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 short sentences, with the 'WRITE:' marker and the core action front-loaded ahead of the permission and retry caveats. Nothing is wasted.

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?

The safety profile, permission requirement, and retry caveat are all covered, which is most of the burden for a mutation tool with no output schema. However, with six parameters at 17% schema coverage, the agent gets no guidance on the task body fields, leaving a real gap.

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 only 17% (only workOrderId is documented), yet the description mentions no parameters at all. Acceptable optional fields like isPrivate (default true), starred, dueDate format, and tags are left entirely to the bare schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Add a task to an existing work order'), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like propertyware_list_work_order_tasks and propertyware_add_task_comment. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

'Requires WORK ORDERS write permission' gives a clear prerequisite, and 'Creates a new task on each call; do not retry blindly' tells the agent when not to call again. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for listing or commenting, which a 5 would require.

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