paymo_create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the operation is a 'Create' (implying mutation) and lists required prerequisites, but it does not describe side effects, response behavior, error conditions, or any constraints beyond parameter requirements. It leaves the agent unaware of what happens on success or failure, which is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 three sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose, states the essential requirements, and lists optional fields efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview. It covers the required fields and optional parameters, and the schema fills in detailed constraints. It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema reduces the expectation. Minor gaps remain around behavioral details, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a concise summary of required vs. optional parameters but does not provide meaning beyond the schema. It repeats priority values and due-date format already present in the schema, adding no new semantic detail.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a new Paymo task.' It specifies the resource (task) and the action (create), distinguishing it from sibling tools like paymo_update_task and paymo_get_task. The explicit mention of required fields (name, project_id/tasklist_id) further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 usage context by stating the mandatory parameters (name and one of project_id/tasklist_id) and listing optional fields. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use paymo_update_task instead) or state exclusions. Since it's a create operation, the prerequisites are clear enough for basic guidance.

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