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

Annotations provide only a title with no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the mutation ('Add a task') and a notable consequence (agent-pickup when assigned), but doesn't mention other effects like permissions or visibility. The agent-pickup note is already in the schema, so the description adds modest extra context.

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 primary action. No filler or repetition. The second sentence earns its place by highlighting a key feature, even though it's also captured in the schema. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple create operation.

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 4-parameter create tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema provide sufficient context. It doesn't explain return values, but none are required here. The most non-obvious aspect, the agent-pickup behavior, is covered, making the description adequate without being over-specified.

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?

All 4 parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of assigning to the agent mirrors the assignee parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter-level insight is offered in the prose.

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?

The description begins with 'Add a task,' a specific verb on a clear resource, and the agent-assignment note directly ties to the tool's unique function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tasks_update and tasks_delete by focusing on creation. The verb 'add' is unambiguous within the tasks context.

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 description implies use when creating a new task, but does not explicitly contrast with tasks_update or tasks_list. The note 'Assign it to the agent and it can pick the task up itself' gives a functional trigger for collaboration but stops short of explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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