createTask

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a task,' which implies mutation but offers no details about permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, return values, or side effects. This is similar to the mid-calibration example where 'update' implied mutation but lacked necessary context.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While every word earns its place, the total content is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters, making it not 'appropriately sized.' It is concise but not sufficiently informative, similar to the calibration note about under-specification not being true conciseness.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters. The description provides only 'Create a task,' which does not explain behavior, return values, or usage context. Even though the schema fully documents parameters, the tool's overall context is incomplete given the absence of safety annotations and the need for behavioral clarity.

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% (all 5 properties have descriptions), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. Per the calibration rules, baseline is 3 with high coverage, and there is no reason to deviate.

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 'Create a task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like listTasks, updateTask, and getTask. It unambiguously states the tool's core function, so it fully satisfies the purpose clarity criterion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or clarify how it differs from similar creation tools like createNote or createAppointment. There is no guidance at all, making this a 'no guidance' case.

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