skylight_create_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that structured data — no note about which frame the item lands in, whether reward_points affects household scoring, or what the response returns.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. However its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation with no annotations carrying behavioral detail, no output schema, and only one documented field, a one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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 only 20% (just 'summary': 'Task title.'), leaving frameId, routine, emoji_icon, and reward_points undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description supplies zero compensating meaning, so four of five parameters are opaque.

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?

"Create a task-box item" essentially restates the tool name skylight_create_task with a synonym for the resource, adding no distinguishing detail. With siblings like skylight_create_chore, skylight_create_recurring_chore, and skylight_create_reward, an agent gets no basis to tell what uniquely constitutes a "task-box item."

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus skylight_create_chore, skylight_create_recurring_chore, or skylight_update_task, and no prerequisites or scope conditions. The agent receives a bare imperative with no routing context.

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