create_task

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Create a new task' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence with version prefix, efficient and clear. Some what front-loaded, but not overly verbose. Minor extraneous info (version) but does not harm clarity.

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?

No output schema; description does not explain return values or behavior on success/failure. With 6 parameters including nested objects, more context about response format would be expected. Lacks completeness for a creation tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value by restating that summary is required and due/members are optional, which is already evident from schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'task', and distinguishes from siblings like update_task and delete_task by specifying it creates a new task. It also highlights required vs optional fields.

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?

Description includes version/environment context ('[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7]') and mentions required/optional fields, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_calendar_event) or when not to use it.

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