create_task

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral rule beyond that — due_date must be YYYY-MM-DD and cannot be in the past — but says nothing about what the new task's identity/return looks like or whether contact_id must exist.

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 short sentences, correctly front-loaded with purpose before the parameter constraint. Every sentence earns its place, though there is no structure beyond the single constraint note.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and this is a simple four-param creation tool. However, with 0% schema coverage the description leaves three of four parameters unexplained, which is a real gap for a mutation tool an agent must call with all four args.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only documents the due_date format and validity constraint. The title, assignee, and contact_id parameters get no semantic explanation (e.g. whether contact_id must reference an existing contact), and the assignee enum is explained only by the schema.

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 ('Create an open task for a contact') and the 'open' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like complete_task and list_tasks. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any alternative tool. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create' versus sibling names such as list_tasks or complete_task.

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