add_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add useful behavior context like the default category and the meaning of each cadence value (gc = 20:00 UTC turn-in window) and the rolling-only restriction on period_hours. However, it says nothing about duplicate handling, persistence, permissions, or what is returned on success, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single compact passage, front-loaded with the purpose, then explicitly split into Required and Optional segments so an agent can extract call essentials in one pass. Every clause adds information; nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well but leaves the agent without return-value expectations, duplicate behavior, or error conditions. It is adequate to invoke the tool correctly but not fully complete about what happens afterward.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it marks the 2 required fields, lists all 5 optional ones, states the category default, enumerates cadence values with the non-obvious 'gc' meaning, and constrains period_hours to rolling cadence. It falls short only on format details like whether 'character' is a name or identifier and on what 'allowance' counts mean beyond one example.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Track a per-character chore'), which, combined with the required character/title pair, makes clear this creates a new per-character task entry. Siblings like complete_task, delete_task, and list_tasks are implicitly excluded by the 'track' framing, though the description never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as complete_task, delete_task, or list_tasks, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The implied usage (add a new chore to track) is inferable but left entirely to the reader.

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