apollo_create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for transparency. It mentions that six fields are required, but fails to disclose side effects, permission needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The basic create action is implied, but important behavioral details are missing.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., user_id or contact_ids must exist), default behavior for the optional note parameter, or clarification of terms like 'teammate'. For a 7-parameter create tool, the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents meaning well. The description redundantly lists the six required fields but adds no new semantic value beyond emphasizing requirements, warranting a baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a task assigned to a teammate, scoped to one or more contacts', specifying the verb (create) and resource (task). Sibling tools like apollo_bulk_create_tasks and apollo_search_tasks are distinct by name, but the description does not explicitly differentiate usage, leaving some 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apollo_bulk_create_tasks for batch creation). The description simply explains what the tool does without providing contextual or exclusionary cues.

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