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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the description carries real weight and delivers: recurrence is stored verbatim/passed through untouched, remindTauDays overrides the global 3-day urgency ramp, and calendarOnly means never reminded even when overdue. It also states the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then parameter semantics; nearly every clause adds decision-relevant information. It is dense and reads as one long run-on paragraph, but there is no filler sentence to cut.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers creation semantics, field coupling, reminder behavior, recurrence handling, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the terse schema strings: it explains the urgency-ramp semantics of remindTauDays, the behavioral consequence of calendarOnly ('not at boot, not per call, not even overdue'), and the verbatim RRULE storage. These are meaning-additions, not restatements.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a task memory') and immediately defines the distinguishing trait (entityType 'task'). It explicitly contrasts itself with sibling muninn_memory_add by ruling out ordinary notes, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 both when-to-use ('to-dos and calendar-shaped events') and when-not ('not for ordinary notes'), and further routes within the tool by taskType (todo -> dueDate, event -> startTime/endTime). The alternative for plain notes is clearly implied via the muninn_memory_add reference.

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