novacrm_create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that a task is created. It says nothing about whether clientId must reference an existing client, how clientId/clientName/clientPhone interact, whether duplicate tasks are allowed, what permissions are needed, or what a successful call returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding, but it is arguably under-specified rather than truly tight, since the brevity leaves real gaps for a 9-parameter creation tool.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never addresses client linkage semantics, the optional dueTime, priority defaults, or the result of the call, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning, since the listed task types loosely mirror the `type` enum and "agenda comercial" hints that dueDate/dueTime are scheduling fields, but it does not clarify the three alternate client-identification parameters or the priority default.

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 uses a specific verb ("Cria") plus a specific resource ("tarefa na agenda comercial") and lists example task types (follow-up, ligação, reunião, e-mail). This clearly distinguishes it from list_tasks, get_task, update_task, delete_task, and complete_task, though the distinction comes from the verb alone rather than explicit naming of siblings.

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 guidance on when to create a task versus using novacrm_complete_task or novacrm_update_task, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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