ticktick_create_task

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning the default inbox behavior when project_id is omitted, but doesn't provide additional details about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with duplicate tasks.

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 appropriately brief with three sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second lists key parameters, and the third provides important default behavior. There's minimal wasted text.

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 that this is a creation tool with 11 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It mentions the existence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), so it doesn't need to describe return values, but it leaves many parameters unexplained and lacks behavioral details for a mutation operation.

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 mentions several parameters (title, description, due date, priority, tags, project_id) and provides semantic context about the project_id default behavior. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description only partially compensates for 11 parameters. It doesn't explain parameters like start_date, is_all_day, time_zone, repeat_flag, or pomo_estimated.

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 action ('Create a new task') and resource ('in TickTick'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'ticktick_batch_create_tasks' or 'ticktick_create_subtask', which would require more specific scope information.

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 some usage context by explaining that 'If project_id is not provided, task goes to inbox,' which helps understand when to use this parameter. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like batch creation or subtask creation, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints.

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