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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine nuance: goal_id is a 'weak link' that keeps the task standalone, and created_at is an override for backfilling. These are helpful behavioral details beyond the annotations, though most of the text is parameter explanation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by an organized Args list where each entry earns its place given the empty schema coverage. The list format is functional rather than elegant, but nothing is wasted.

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 a 9-param, single-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description documents every input thoroughly, including defaults, formats, and semantics. Return behavior need not be explained since no output schema exists, so it is effectively complete for the calling decision.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates, documenting all 9 params: the priority 0.0–1.0 range with default 0.5, source enum values ('agent'/'user'/'system'), ISO-8601 format with an example ('2026-07-05T09:00:00'), and the required status of title. This adds substantial meaning the bare schema lacks.

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+resource ('Create a standalone task') and immediately differentiates scope with 'a unit of work NOT part of any goal plan,' which cleanly separates it from goal-oriented siblings like create_goal and submit_goal_plan. An agent can identify its role without opening the 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?

The 'NOT part of any goal plan' clause implies when to prefer this over create_goal, giving useful scope-based guidance. However, it names no alternative tool explicitly and gives no when-not conditions, so usage must be inferred.

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