create_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that tasks track completion status, notes do not, and events support timezone-aware datetimes—key behaviors beyond what the schema states. It also clarifies 'start' omission results in inbox placement. It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a create tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids repetition of schema details and is free of fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the core facets: what the tool creates, the key 'start' decision, and behavioral distinctions among entry kinds. It relies on the schema for parameter details and the output schema for return values, which is appropriate. It could mention 'period' explicitly, but the schema covers that.

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%, but the description adds semantic context beyond the schema by explaining how 'start' interacts with scheduling/inbox and how 'kind' affects behavior (status tracking, timezone support). This enriches the schema's mention of the 'period' parameter and the meaning of 'importance' is left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('task, note, or event in Bullet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entries, get_entry, update_entry, and delete_entry. It also adds subtype semantics (tasks, notes, events) that further clarify its scope.

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 clear guidance on when to set 'start' (to schedule) versus omit it (to put into the inbox), and explains the differences between tasks, notes, and events. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use update_entry to modify'), but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool for creation.

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