add_google_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only includes the due_iso format, omitting auth requirements, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The mutation is implicit but not detailed, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds essential format detail. No wasted words, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks usage guidance and parameter context. Given the simplicity of a create operation, it's minimally viable, but an agent would benefit from more context about task creation, such as handling of notes defaults or potential conflicts.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains only due_iso format, leaving the required 'title' and optional 'notes' semantically underdefined. The agent cannot infer the expected content or constraints of the primary required parameter from the description.

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 tool's function: 'Creates a new Google Task.' The verb 'creates' plus the resource 'Google Task' specifically distinguishes it from sibling task tools like list_google_tasks, complete_google_task, and delete_google_task. Mentioning due_iso format adds practical detail without 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?

Usage is implied—use when you need to create a Google Task—but the description does not explicitly contrast with add_calendar_event or other 'add' tools, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit context about which scenarios favor this tool.

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