ticktick_create_task

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive or idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the default behavior (tasks go to Inbox if no project_id), provides concrete examples of usage, and describes the return format. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 well-structured and efficiently organized: a clear purpose statement, parameter documentation with examples, return value explanation, and practical usage examples. Every section adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given this is a creation tool with no destructive annotations and an output schema exists (returns JSON with success status and task details), the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, all parameters with semantics, usage examples, return format, and references to sibling tools. The combination of description and annotations gives the agent everything needed to use this tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has no descriptions at the top level, only within the nested CreateTaskInput), the description carries the full burden. It provides excellent parameter semantics: it lists all parameters with clear explanations, examples of values, default behaviors, and even includes practical examples showing how natural language requests map to parameters.

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 specific action ('Create a new task in TickTick') and distinguishes it from siblings like update_task, complete_task, and delete_task by focusing on creation. It specifies the resource (task) and key parameters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (creating tasks) and mentions using ticktick_list_projects first to get project_id, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. update_task for existing tasks) or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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