create_task

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

The description only states the action and does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, return values, or whether the task is persisted immediately. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency, and it does not meet that burden. It is not misleading but is severely under-informative.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity means it omits useful operational details, though this does not violate conciseness principles.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not mention return values, error semantics, or relationships to other task operations. The schema covers parameter meanings but not the broader behavioral context an agent needs for correct invocation.

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?

All six parameters are already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'for a contact' aligns with contactId but does not elaborate on its format or behavior, so the description does not compensate beyond 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?

The description 'Create a new task for a contact' clearly identifies the action (create), the resource (task), and the scope (for a contact), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tasks, update_task, and delete_task. It is a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

No explicit usage guidelines are provided. The verb 'create' implies the tool is for new tasks, distinguishing it from update_task or complete_task, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions are mentioned. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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