CreateTransportTask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that omitting target_user makes the server resolve an empty owner and fail with SCTS_ADT_MSG 009, and that an Unclassified task refuses AddTransportObject with SCTS_ADT_MSG 009/TK127. It omits permissions/idempotency behavior for this write, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites and defaults, with no filler sentences. The error-code details are dense but each clause supports a decision the caller must make, though the passage could be trimmed slightly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical failure modes, the required parameter and the default typing, and notes that the returned number is the task to be used downstream. Permission and rollback behavior are the only notable omissions.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining why target_user is required (empty owner causes a server refusal) and why task_type defaults to S (Unclassified breaks AddTransportObject). It adds no new syntax for detail, but the consequence framing is real added value.

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 a task under an existing transport request) plus the ownership and typing constraints in the first sentence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings CreateTransport, AddTransportObject and RemoveTransportObject by explaining that objects live on tasks, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions: the request must already exist, target_user is mandatory, and the task is the resource that AddTransportObject/RemoveTransportObject operate on. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative ('if you only want a request, use CreateTransport') or a when-not-to-use case, but the context is strong.

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