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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety burden is partly covered. The description adds the permission threshold ('Editor or above'), which is genuine value beyond annotations, but it says nothing about the practical consequence of non-idempotency (duplicate task creation on retry) or 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 clauses with no filler, and the key attributes (types, due time, associations, permission) are all front-loaded. The clipped fragment style costs a little readability, 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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema and mutation annotations, the description covers type, timing, associations, and permissions – enough for an agent to call it sensibly. The missing pieces (duplicate-creation risk from non-idempotency, and what the created task reference looks like) are modest but real.

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 only 50% schema description coverage, the description partly compensates: it enumerates the `kind` enum values and clarifies that deal/client linkage is optional, and 'a client' implicitly maps to the undocumented contact_id. However, it says nothing about `title` (required, 300-char cap) or the required workspace_id, leaving two parameters without prose support.

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 names the resource (a task) and enumerates the types (call, message, meeting, to-do) plus optional deal/client linkage, which is specific and distinguishes it from read/update siblings. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement ('creates a task'), so the action itself comes from the title/name rather than the prose.

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?

'Editor or above' gives a concrete prerequisite that helps an agent decide whether it can call this at all. There is no guidance on when to create a task versus related siblings such as dosai_add_lead_reminder, dosai_add_followup_step, or dosai_update_task for existing tasks.

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