create_task

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: the mode is determined by flags, body accepts HTML, and tasks are linked via IDs. It covers the four distinct creation behaviors. However, it does not mention side effects like notifications or idempotency, which would improve transparency.

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 with clear sections for each mode, using bold headers and bullet points. It is concise despite the complexity, with every sentence contributing value (e.g., examples, mode definitions). No redundant or vague statements.

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 tool's complexity (21 parameters, 4 modes) and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers all key use cases, provides examples, and explains parameter dependencies. The agent can correctly invoke the tool for any of the four activity types without additional information.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema by grouping parameters into modes and providing concrete examples. It clarifies conditional requirements (e.g., due_date requires is_reminder; starts_at requires is_event). This helps the agent understand parameter relationships and usage context.

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 creates a task, which can be a note, to-do, appointment, or cancellation. It uses the verb 'create' and specifies the resource 'task' in Propstack. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task and get_task by being the central write endpoint for all activity types.

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 explicit usage guidelines by defining four modes with examples for each: note, to-do, appointment, cancellation. It explains how to set specific flags to achieve each mode, and advises linking tasks to contacts, properties, or projects via *_ids arrays. This helps the agent choose the correct mode and parameters.

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