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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the concrete auth/permission requirement ('tasks.write') and the mandatory-field dependency, which is real value beyond the structured data. It doesn't cover duplication/retry behavior even though idempotentHint=false flags that as a risk.

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 tight sentences: operation mode first, then prerequisites, then permission. Zero filler and nothing buried at the end.

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?

Covers the create-a-task workflow end to end for a 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool: what's required, where to get the label id, and what permission gates it. Only the return value (presumably the new task id) and defaults for optional fields are unaddressed.

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?

At 60% schema coverage with 10 parameters, the description touches only the required pair (label_id, due_date) and the record-attachment concept. It says nothing about priority, is_private, title, or the distinction between owner_id and assigned_staff_ids, so an agent must read the schema for the majority of the surface.

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 ('create a task') plus the two scoping dimensions that matter (record attachment, staff assignment). The 'WRITE:' prefix instantly separates it from the read-oriented task siblings (get_task, list_tasks, search_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?

Names the prerequisite lookup path explicitly ('see sellsy_list_task_labels' for a label id) and states the required scope ('Needs tasks.write'), which tells an agent what it must have before calling. No explicit when-not conditions, but for a create tool the alternatives are obvious from the sibling list.

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