Create a task group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral content beyond that: the consumption loop and the subagent execution model. It does not surface that the replace option overwrites a group that already has progress, which is the one risky behavior an agent should know about.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the creation action and input formats, then the workflow. No wasted words.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description omits what is returned (group identifier? task list?) and whether the created group needs to be referenced later. The workflow hint helps, but return-value and replace-semantics gaps keep it at minimum-viable-plus.

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 60%, and the two undocumented parameters (markdown, tasks) are exactly the ones the description explains, including the '## Task 1: Title' heading format. It adds little about replace and system_prompt, which the schema mostly covers (replace) and leaves thin (system_prompt: 'Shared instructions returned with every task' is in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Split work into ordered tasks' creating a task group) and names the two accepted input formats. It is clearly distinguishable from the task-consuming siblings (get_next_task, complete_task), which it references as downstream steps.

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 second sentence explicitly prescribes the follow-up workflow: loop get_next_task, do the task (ideally in a subagent), complete_task. That is strong usage context, though it never says when to choose this over alternatives like clear_tasks or which input format (markdown vs tasks array) to prefer in which situation.

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