Create Zero Task

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds that the operation persists a task for the signed-in user and frames it as saving. No hidden behavior or contradiction is present.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the action and scope first and the essential call trigger second. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 schema provides types, constraints, enums, defaults, and required fields, so the parameter list is structurally usable. The description supplies the key missing context: whose task is created and when the tool may be called. It falls short of 5 because it does not mention using update_task for existing tasks or what a successful save returns.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the five parameters or their roles. The agent is left to infer semantics from bare property names like title, description, status, due_date, and priority, with no explanation of required inputs 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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'Zero task' and scopes it to the signed-in user, making it clearly distinct from sibling update_task. It states exactly what the tool does without merely restating the name.

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 instruction 'Call only after the user explicitly asks to save the task' gives a concrete, enforceable trigger and prevents proactive creation. It does not explicitly name the alternative for editing existing tasks, so it is not a full routing guide.

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