create_task

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description usefully adds where the result lands (the Skylight display task box) and that items are unscheduled. However, it does not disclose that the operation is non-idempotent — an agent calling twice will likely create duplicate tasks — which is the most consequential behavioral gap here.

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?

Well front-loaded: the core action and the concept explanation come first, before usage examples. Minor redundancy — 'task box' is restated in the final sentence after the examples already conveyed it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by saying the task appears in the display task box. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only duplicate/return-detail behavior is left implicit.

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% and all four parameters (summary, emoji, routine, rewardPoints) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 and resource ('Add a task to the Skylight task box') and clarifies the resource's semantics: unscheduled tasks that can later be assigned to dates. This distinguishes it conceptually from date-bound siblings like create_calendar_event, though it never names the adjacent task-like sibling (create_chore) to draw the line explicitly.

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?

Provides three concrete user-utterance triggers and implicitly excludes the dated case ('Remind me to do ABC' without a specific date), which points an agent toward create_calendar_event for scheduled items. It stops short of naming that alternative outright, so the routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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