Create a task

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

Annotations already indicate a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds the side-effect distinction that creating a task does not log time but completing it with update_task does, and that attaching a goalId affects report/progress meaning—context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, all purposeful, with the core action front-loaded. Minor redundancy with 'WRITES.' and the estimatedMinutes unit repeating the schema, but overall tight.

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-param create tool with a fully-covered schema, the description adds key behavioral context (no time logging, goalId preference) and references get_context for timezone/categories. It omits nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the rationale for goalId ('makes reports and goal progress meaningful') and reiterates estimatedMinutes unit, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. The added guidance nudges it to a 4.

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 tool's action ('Creates a task') with optional attachments to a goal and schedule block, and explicitly contrasts it with goalslot_update_task for completion/time logging, distinguishing it from siblings like goalslot_create_goal.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: prefer attaching a goalId when the task serves one for meaningful reports, and clarifies this tool does not log time—use update_task for that. It names the alternative and the condition, satisfying the highest bar.

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