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

Adds value beyond the annotations by spelling out the practical consequence of idempotentHint=false: 'Creates a new record each time it is called', warning against retry-driven duplicates. It doesn't cover permission requirements or failure behavior for invalid patient_id/assigned_to.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and the non-idempotency caveat at the end where it is most likely to be read as a warning.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what is returned (e.g. the new task id), which an agent needs for follow-up calls like semble_update_task. Safety metadata is covered by annotations, but the return contract is 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that assigned_to must be a staff user id sourced from semble_list_users and that patient linkage is optional. Field enumeration overlaps the schema but the id-sourcing hint earns the bump.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Creates a task in Semble'. It enumerates the supported fields, which makes the scope concrete and separates it in spirit from semble_update_task and semble_list_tasks, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: assigned_to requires a staff user id obtained via semble_list_users, which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer semble_update_task over creating a new task.

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