contacts_create_task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what side effects might occur, whether the task is linked to a contact automatically, or any permissions required. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds zero value beyond them.

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?

While extremely concise (one short sentence), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no structure or informative content. The description does not earn its place; it is merely a placeholder that repeats the concept in the name without adding value.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose in the context of contacts, does not describe return values (since there is no output schema), and provides no detail about how to construct a valid request. An agent has almost no information to call this tool correctly.

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 only 17% (only contactId has a description 'Contact Id'), leaving 5 of 6 parameters undocumented. The description 'Create Task' provides no information about what the parameters mean, how they relate, or which are required beyond the schema itself. With low coverage, the description must compensate, and it completely fails to do so.

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 states the verb 'Create' and resource 'Task', which is clear at a basic level, but it does not specify that the task is associated with a contact (despite the tool name 'contacts_create_task') and does not distinguish it from other create tools like 'contacts_create_note' or sibling tools across different domains. It is not a tautology, but it offers no differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says 'Create Task' with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no signal about whether to use this or e.g. 'contacts_update_task' or 'locations_create_recurring_task'.

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