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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true with no readOnlyHint, and the description's 'WRITE:' prefix is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, it does not disclose what the create operation returns, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required, so it adds modest context beyond the annotations rather than rich behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the WRITE classification, then packs scope, the id-source hint, and the API endpoint with zero filler.

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 six-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optionality of fields, and the dependency for admin_ids adequately. The only gap is that an agent gets no hint about what the created task response contains, which is minor given the absence of an output schema.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the timezone requirement for due_date. The description adds one useful semantic link (admin_ids originate from recruitee_list_team_members) but otherwise restates what the schema covers, so 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?

The description names a specific verb (create) and resource (recruiting task) and enumerates the key scope dimensions: optional candidate linkage, team-member assignment, and optional due date. It also explicitly tags the operation as a WRITE, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from read siblings like recruitee_list_tasks.

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 tells the agent where assignee ids come from (recruitee_list_team_members), which is a genuine routing hint toward a sibling tool. It does not state any when-not conditions or prerequisites beyond that, but the context given is clear and actionable.

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