create_task

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as restricting task types to cleaning or maintenance, but does not disclose return values or potential side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds some but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action, subject, and scope.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple create tool with full schema coverage and annotations. However, it does not mention return behavior (e.g., whether it returns the created task or an ID), and there is no output schema to compensate. This leaves a notable gap for agents needing to handle results.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including the description for 'type' as 'cleaning or maintenance'. The tool description repeats this detail without adding new meaning. Since the schema carries the full parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a cleaning or maintenance task for a listing' uses a specific verb ('create') and clearly identifies the resource ('task') and scope ('cleaning or maintenance for a listing'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_tasks or get_maintenance_alerts, which are read-oriented.

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 clear context that this tool is for creating tasks, and its write-only nature is evident from the verb. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context signals among siblings (e.g., get_tasks) make the appropriate usage inferable. No misleading guidance is present.

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