Create a billable SpicyAPI task

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important billing and failure behavior: it obtains a quote, shows USD estimate and maximum charge, reserves funds, creates an async task, and fails after the free quote without charging if form elicitation is unsupported. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the description adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary workflow is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information: the creation flow, the task_quote exclusion, and the critical client-support failure condition.

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?

The description covers the full call sequence, the money-related implications, the alternative to avoid, and the failure mode, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the absence of a detailed return-value explanation is acceptable.

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 only 20%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the remaining parameters. The schema's retentionSeconds is well documented, but model, input, callBackUrl, and idempotencyKey receive no added meaning from the description, leaving a significant semantic gap for a low-coverage 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?

The description states a specific process and resource: obtain an exact quote, show the USD estimate and maximum charge, reserve funds, and create an asynchronous task. It also explicitly distinguishes this from task_quote by instructing not to call task_quote first unless independently comparing prices, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: the tool performs quote, confirmation, and creation in one flow, and the agent should not call task_quote first unless independently comparing prices. It also warns that the tool requires an MCP client supporting form elicitation, and if that support is absent the call fails after the quote with no charge.

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