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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the downstream automation (one reminder email to the worker, one owner notification on overdue-and-open) and who may create tasks. It leaves out what is returned, but an output schema exists.

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?

The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the sentence packs purpose, optional fields, due-date semantics, and notification behavior without filler. Dense but each clause earns its place; only the field enumeration runs slightly long.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers intent, key parameter meanings, permission scope, and side effects; the output schema handles return values. Only shop_id goes unmentioned, which is reasonably inferred from the tenant context.

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 0%, so this text must explain the parameters — and it does: title, job_id, assignee_id ('the worker it is for'), note_id ('the note it came from'), and critically the due_on vs due_at split with the 5 PM shop-time default, which the schema alone cannot convey.

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 ("Make a tracked task") and enumerates the fields it captures (title, job, worker, note, due date). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with tasks_update/tasks_close/tasks_list, but 'create' is unambiguous against those siblings.

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?

"Any worker on the shop can make one" gives a permission/eligibility cue, and the due_on vs due_at note tells the agent which due field to pick. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternative creation paths, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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