Create a To Do task

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

Annotations declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing specifics: it returns the created task, normalizes date-only due dates to midnight, and turns on reminder when reminderDateTime is supplied because Graph defaults isReminderOn to false. These behaviors are not apparent from the schema or annotations alone.

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 concisely structured, leading with the primary action and return value, then adding essential details about required fields and date handling. Each sentence contributes value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, date-time nuances, no output schema), the description covers the critical edge cases (timezone handling, all-day dates, reminder enabling) and clearly states the return of the created task. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits potential error conditions and auth details, which are not always required.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds nuance: explains that due/reminder values are converted to Graph dateTimeTimeZone using the timeZone argument, and clarifies the midnight behavior for all-day dates. This goes beyond the schema's notes, enhancing the agent's understanding.

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 ('Creates'), a resource ('task in a To Do list'), and a return value ('returns the created task'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like todo_update_task and todo_delete_task by naming the create action. No ambiguity.

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 guidance on required fields ('Only title is required') and explains the handling of due and reminder dates, which is essential for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., todo_update_task) or state when not to use it. Still, the context is strong.

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