autotask_create_phase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and gets directly to the point.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns upon success, what error conditions might occur, or any prerequisites beyond the required parameters. Given the complexity of creating a project phase in a professional services automation system, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between parameters like startDate and dueDate). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new phase') and resource ('in an Autotask project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like 'autotask_create_project' or 'autotask_create_task', which would require mentioning it's specifically for project phases rather than other Autotask entities.

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. With many sibling tools for creating different Autotask entities (e.g., autotask_create_project, autotask_create_task), there's no indication that this is specifically for adding phases to existing projects rather than creating projects themselves or other related entities.

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