locations_create_recurring_task

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-idempotent. The description adds nothing about behaviors such as whether the first task is created immediately, permission requirements, or error handling. It contributes no extra behavioral information beyond what the annotations already state.

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 the description is a single sentence, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and front-loading of critical information, leaving the agent with no useful insights beyond the name. It is too sparse to be considered efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested rruleOptions with required sub-fields, 7 parameters, and many related sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention required fields, clarify recurrence syntax, or describe the response. The schema covers parameters but the description fails to provide any higher-level 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, including nested rruleOptions sub-fields (100% coverage). Since the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing understanding.

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 'Create Recurring Task' essentially restates the tool name. It identifies the verb and resource but offers no elaboration on what a recurring task is or how it differs from similar create operations (e.g., contacts_create_task). It provides minimal added clarity beyond the name itself.

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 provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contacts_create_task or locations_update_recurring_task. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving an agent without any routing context.

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