team_time_create_task

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, non-idempotent, and destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: creation cannot atomically deduplicate competing agents, which warns the agent about race conditions. It still doesn't say what is returned or whether defaults are applied to statusId.

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?

Three short, dense sentences with zero filler, and the precondition plus the concurrency caveat are front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 output schema, 0% schema coverage, and open-world/destructive annotations, the description covers the key concurrency risk but omits return value shape, default status behavior, and any permission requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'Tags are names; assigneeId is a userId' clarifies two ambiguous fields and bootstrap resolves IDs. However statusId, projectId, dueOn, and description formats/constraints are left entirely to the unlabeled schema, so half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (unfinished work/task), and the name confirms it is a task-creation tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like team_time_update_task or team_time_complete_task by the 'unfinished work' framing, though the phrase 'work' rather than 'task' is slightly imprecise.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('after checking for overlapping tasks') and routes ID resolution to team_time_bootstrap, which is real actionable guidance. It stops short of naming exclusion cases (e.g. use complete_task for already-done work, or update_task instead of recreating).

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