create-todo-task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds no contradictory statements and provides some useful context (e.g., the source of todoTaskListId and optional fields). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like confirmation requirements (though the confirm parameter is in the schema) or side effects beyond creation. Since the description does not contradict annotations and adds a small amount of context, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 description is two sentences long, with the primary purpose stated first and the tip as a compact, useful addition. The '💡 TIP' is informal but efficient, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately front-loaded and scannable.

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 tool with a complex nested body and a required list ID, the description provides a minimal body example, lists optional fields, and directs the agent to the sibling tool for the ID. It does not mention the confirm parameter or output structure, but annotations and schema cover those aspects. Given the richness of the schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could briefly note the confirmation gate.

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 80%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes some schema details (e.g., 'Body: { title: ... }' and optional fields) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The only slight addition is highlighting the most relevant optional fields for a quick start, but it is largely redundant.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new task object') and the resource ('task object in a specified todoTaskList'). It also frames it as a Microsoft To Do operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-todo-tasks or create-todo-task-list. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires todoTaskListId from list-todo-task-lists', which tells the agent where to obtain the required ID. It also furnishes a body example and lists optional fields, giving practical usage context. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for updates/deletes), but the create nature is self-evident from the name and description.

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