create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state the core effect (creates a task) and adds a useful validation constraint (complete_till must be a UNIX timestamp), but it omits any mention of permissions, side effects, auth requirements, or response behavior. This is a minimal but not misleading disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one critical formatting constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. The schema handles parameter details, and the description covers purpose and the timestamp constraint, but it does not mention return/confirmation behavior or explicitly guide entity association. There are clear gaps, but the core invocation requirements are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification with examples of task text and reinforces the complete_till format, but it does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for the other 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?

States a specific action and resource ('Cria uma nova tarefa no CRM') and gives concrete task-type examples (ligar, reunião, email). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tasks, update_task, and complete_task, which operate on existing tasks rather than creating new ones.

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 implies that this tool is for creating a new task, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over update_task or complete_task, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The word 'nova' provides basic usage context, but no alternatives are named.

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