Create Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a task without modifying existing CRM data and mentions the return value. It could further describe side effects on linked resources, but the current level is adequate for a creation operation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence serves a clear role.

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 create tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, side-effects, and return value. It could mention error conditions or idempotency, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents parameters well. The description adds value by contextualizing the tool's use (scheduling reminders) and hinting at optional linking. It does not redundantly repeat schema details but provides enough additional meaning.

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 creates a follow-up task in Copper, optionally linked to CRM records. It provides a specific usage example (schedule a reminder) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are for searching, listing, or getting records.

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 a concrete use case ('schedule a reminder') with an example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The sibling tools are sufficiently different to imply usage context, but explicit exclusions would improve clarity.

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