create_follow_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies creating a record but doesn't state whether creation is immediate/persistent, whether email fields trigger any notification or just store data, how priority defaults work, or what the response contains. For a creation tool, the agent has no idea about side effects beyond 'storing an item.'

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 reasonably sized - a brief lead sentence followed by three bullet examples. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet examples are somewhat verbose and some overlap in meaning ('check back on a project status' and 'promised to follow up on a topic' are similar concepts), so it's slightly longer than necessary but not bloated.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description's job is mainly to establish purpose and behavior. The purpose is well-covered, but the description doesn't clarify relationships to sibling creation tools (create_commitment, create_delegation) which is a notable gap given the large sibling set. For a straightforward item-creation tool with a clear output schema, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. The examples in the description help contextualize the tool's purpose (which informs parameter usage) but don't add specific parameter-level semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose ('Create a new follow-up item') with specific examples of use cases. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly - the verb 'create' vs the many get/search/fetch siblings makes it clear this is a creation tool, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from create_commitment, create_delegation, or create_asana_task, which are similar creation tools for related item types.

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 provides concrete example scenarios ('Waiting for a response', 'Need to check back on a project status', 'Promised to follow up') which help the agent understand when follow-ups are appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this vs create_commitment or create_delegation, which are closely related sibling tools that the description doesn't address.

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