task_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a new task' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what permissions are required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on validation errors, rate limits, or what 'Created task details' actually contains. It mentions the return but lacks behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and appropriately sized. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential parameter documentation. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the purpose statement to the very beginning, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It documents all parameters well and mentions the return, but lacks behavioral context about permissions, error handling, or side effects. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but for a creation tool with no safety annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), but the description adds: 'Contact ID to associate task with', 'Type of task (action_item, call, email, linkedin)', 'Task notes/description', 'Due date (ISO format)', and 'Priority level (low, medium, high)'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds crucial context like format requirements and allowed values.

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 'Create a new task' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' (listing vs creating) and 'deal_create' (different resource type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'sequence_create' or 'workflow_create' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist), when not to use it, or comparison to similar tools like 'sequence_create' or 'workflow_create' that might also involve task-like operations. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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