create_recurring_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the core behavior — a hosted scheduler spawns real task instances from the template and tags them with source_recurrence_id — which goes beyond the schema. However it omits important operational traits for a recurrence tool: whether the first instance spawns immediately or after one interval, what happens on delete_recurrence, and how invalid rule/anchor combinations are handled.

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 sentences, nothing wasted, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral detail. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the spawning/linking model that the schema alone does not convey.

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 14-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the creation model but leaves scheduling semantics unaddressed — first-occurrence timing, the interaction of rule_type with anchor_weekday/anchor_day/anchor_month, and skip_if_open edge behavior are all left to the agent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across all 14 parameters, so the schema already documents content, rule_type, interval, anchors, timezone, skip_if_open, etc. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource: 'Create a recurring task template.' That is clearly distinct in concept from create_task or update_recurrence. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the template-vs-instance framing makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need a repeating task rather than a one-off. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to create_task vs update_recurrence, so the guidance stays at the minimum-viable level.

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