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

The description adds the important behavioral detail that Reclaim automatically schedules the task, which goes beyond the annotations. However, with destructiveHint=true present, it does not explain why creation is considered destructive, what side effects may occur to existing calendar events, or what happens after creation. It adds some value but leaves significant 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of the REST endpoint is slightly extra but not harmful. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, though the endpoint reference is not essential for an AI agent's invocation.

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?

Despite rich schema coverage, this is a complex creation tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and a destructiveHint that is not explained. The description omits return value details, prerequisites, and side effects on the calendar. It is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full impact of calling this tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, including enumerations and detailed comments. The description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the auto-scheduling behavior, which touches on time-related fields. The high schema coverage means the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Create a new task,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reclaim_delete_task and reclaim_update_task by adding auto-scheduling behavior and the REST endpoint.

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?

'Reclaim schedules it into your calendar automatically' implies when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when using reclaim_add_time for manually adding calendar time. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit.

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