create_recurring_task

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds extensive behavior: occurrences are materialized when a client next opens after midnight rather than immediately, defaults apply when create_occurrences is omitted, first occurrence is written on the start day even if future, and inherited fields (label, priority, size, note, subtasks, sections, hard deadline) are enumerated and flagged as API-verified.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each paragraph carries distinct information about timing, inheritance, and weekend rules. It is dense but not padded, though the RRULE example and the only_weekdays caveat are near-duplicated from the schema, which is a minor redundancy rather than true waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the tricky semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong: deferred occurrence creation, default fallbacks, parameter-type coupling, and weekend edge cases. Nothing required to call the tool correctly across its 24 parameters is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it maps each repeat enum value to its required companion parameter and to the dialog type, explains custom requires an RRULE string, and annotates only_weekdays edge behavior as 'verified' (weekend month-day moves to Friday) versus 'inferred' (every_x_days counting weekdays). This goes beyond restating schema text.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Create) and resource (recurring task) and bounds the scope to the app's eleven repeat-dialog types, which cleanly distinguishes it from create_task and update_recurring_task. An agent can identify what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied through the repeated framing of the in-app 'repeat dialog' and the note that omitting create_occurrences falls back to the account default, but the description never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. create_task for non-recurring items) or states when-not-to-use. The agent must infer routing from the pervasive dialog context.

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