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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them: it discloses the required field set, that linkage fields are optional, and that the call returns the new task's id — a detail the annotations cannot supply.

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 dense paragraph front-loaded with the operation class and verb; every clause carries information (prerequisites, optional links, return value, source tool), with no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (the new task id), and it covers the three required parameters plus the linking axes. Minor gaps remain on the plain 'description' and 'estimated_duration_minutes' fields and on permission expectations for a destructive-hinted write.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that assignment is to 'a user or team' (clarifying the assignee_id/assignee_type pairing) and that a customer, deal, project or ticket may be linked. It omits the free-text description and estimated_duration_minutes fields, so it does not fully compensate.

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 (to-do)'), flags the operation class up front ('WRITE:'), and names the companion tool (teamleader_list_work_types) rather than leaving the agent to guess among siblings like teamleader_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?

Gives concrete prerequisites (title, due date, work type id) and explicitly routes the agent to teamleader_list_work_types to obtain a work type id. It does not discuss when not to use it or alternative paths, but for a create-only tool with no sibling overlap that context is largely sufficient.

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