Create RD Station CRM Task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: mentions the 403 error on paid plan types for free accounts and explains assignee resolution behavior. It doesn't describe what happens if assignee is required but not provided on multi-user accounts or the response format, but since there's no output schema, some gaps remain.

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 efficiently organized into two compact paragraphs plus a usage example. Every sentence carries information - the free-plan caveat, assignee resolution, and the when-to-use example are all distinct and relevant. Slightly verbose in the param enumeration at the start, but overall tight.

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 create tool with 8 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational caveats (free-plan 403, assignee resolution, default type/hour). It doesn't explicitly describe the response/confirmation behavior, but for a non-destructive create operation the practical gaps are minor given strong schema coverage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining assignee resolution semantics that the schema doesn't capture (user vs user_id vs omitted, single-user account auto-resolution). It also clarifies that type 'task' is the only free-plan option. The notes about assignee disambiguation go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('Create a task on a deal'), the resource (deal tasks), and enumerates the key fields (subject, type, due date/time, assignee). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the creation tool for tasks within deals, contrasted with rdcrm_list_tasks and rdcrm_add_note.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with a concrete natural-language example ('schedule a follow-up call on the Acme deal for Friday 10am'). It also discloses meaningful constraints: free-plan accounts only allow 'task' type, and assignee resolution rules (user_id, user by email/name, or omitted for single-user accounts). This is strong exclusion/guidance native language.

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