focus_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that creation is immediate and without confirmation, but omits other important traits such as what the API returns, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects on related resources. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('create a task') and includes key constraints. No word is wasted.

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 tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not guide the agent on optional parameters, expected return values, or how to set up related fields like project_id or tag_ids. This leaves substantial ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 only restates that 'name' is required, which is already explicit in the input schema. With schema description coverage at only 24%, the description does not compensate by explaining the other 76% of parameters or clarify optional parameter usage.

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, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like focus_update_task and focus_get_task by emphasizing immediate creation without confirmation. The 'Toggl Focus/2.0' prefix provides version context.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for creating a task immediately without confirmation, and notes the name requirement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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