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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'creates new objects, touches nothing external' profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that with no settings the template applies exactly as stored — but omits whether the template itself is left untouched, whether repeated calls duplicate tasks (idempotentHint=false), and what is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of redundant wording. The brevity edges toward under-specification rather than padding, which is the right trade-off.

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 5 parameters, full schema coverage and annotations present, the structured data carries most of the load, but a creation tool with no output schema leaves the agent guessing what is returned (created task ids?) and whether calling twice duplicates tasks. The description does not close those gaps.

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 every parameter including id, date, mode, steps and project_id is already documented with format and defaults. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the vague 'sans réglage' notion of defaults, 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?

States a specific verb and resource combination — 'Créer des tâches à partir d'un modèle' — which distinguishes it from plain task creation like dandori_create_task by making the template the source. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the phrase 'à partir d'un modèle' is enough for an agent to tell it apart.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that an id must come from dandori_list_task_templates — that hint lives only in the schema), and no indication of when to prefer this over creating tasks directly. The second sentence describes default behavior rather than usage conditions, so guidance remains absent.

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