create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that if no responsible person is specified, it defaults to the configured user, which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., creation confirmation, error handling), whether it's idempotent, or any restrictions. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides key usage details. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to effectively use custom_fields or parameters like tasklist_id. More context is needed for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 high (90%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by emphasizing that project_id accepts both name and ID, and that person_responsible defaults to ZOHO_MY_USER_ID. This info is partially present in the schema but rephrased, so it does not significantly augment understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb ('Crea') and resource ('nueva tarea'), indicating a create operation. It also provides extra context about accepting project name or ID and default responsible user. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'add_comment' or 'update_task', though the purpose is clear from the action.

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 offers some guidance on parameter usage, such as accepting project name or ID and defaulting to ZOHO_MY_USER_ID. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful but limited.

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