create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'supports' various features (project/section by name, natural language due date, etc.), which implies flexibility but doesn't detail error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It adds some context about parameter resolution (e.g., 'resolved to ID' implied for project_name), but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Create a single Todoist task') followed by a concise list of supported features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose and key parameters well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or prerequisites. For a creation tool with moderate parameter count and no structured safety hints, more completeness would be beneficial.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema by listing key parameters (project/section by name, natural language due date, priority 1-4, labels, optional parent task) and clarifying semantics like 'natural language' for due dates and 'subtask' for parent tasks. With schema description coverage at 63%, this compensates well for gaps, though it doesn't cover all 8 parameters explicitly (e.g., 'description' field is omitted in the description).

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 single Todoist task') and resource ('Todoist task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_task' or 'complete_task' which modify existing tasks rather than creating new ones. The verb 'Create' is precise and 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 a single task with various optional features), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'create_subtasks' for batch creation or 'update_task' for modifications, though the purpose implies this distinction.

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