rx_create_simple_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered; the description adds real context — it mutates data in RX, performers immediately receive assignments, draft=true suppresses sending, notice=true sends without waiting for completion. It does not describe reversibility or what happens to omitted optional fields, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effects, then modes, then the sibling routing, then the pre-call instruction — a logical ordering. It is dense but each sentence carries a distinct instruction; no filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, the key alternatives, and a pre-call confirmation step, while annotations and schema supply safety and parameter detail. Return/result format is unspecified, but the mutation outcome is implied clearly enough.

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% and every parameter (subject, deadline, draft, notice, observer_ids, etc.) is already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's restatement of draft/notice and the required fields adds little beyond the schema text.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Создать простую задачу и сразу отправить её исполнителям') with the side effect (performers receive assignments) stated up front. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rx_create_ticket ('для карточки на agile-доске используйте rx_create_ticket'), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Names the concrete alternative (rx_create_ticket) and the condition selecting it (agile board card), plus the required inputs and where to source performer ids (rx_find_employees). It also codifies the two operational modes (draft, notice) and a pre-call retelling requirement, leaving little to inference.

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