task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: auto-naming, tags stamped at creation, and the link_to/weight coupling being made in one call rather than two. It omits permissions, reversibility, default layer effect, and what the call returns, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries actionable content (tags, due formats, linking). Slight duplication of the due-format detail already in the schema is the only 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?

For a 7-parameter capture tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers creation, tagging, deadline formats, and in-call linking well. The main gap is absence of return/error expectations, which the missing output schema would otherwise carry.

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 coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including the due format and weight/link_to relationship. The description mostly restates these, only adding the edge-name-exactness caveat, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: "Capture a todo as a Task node," and adds concrete side effects (auto-naming from body, default tags kind:task/status:open). It does not explicitly differentiate from near-siblings like jot or claim, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies when to use it via the linking nudge ("pass link_to ... in this same call") and the note that islands resolve only by exact name, which steers behavior. But there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many capture-adjacent siblings.

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