Create a task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the consequence that an agent actually needs: calling it twice creates two tasks, and creation may trigger subscribing workers. That is behavioral context beyond the structured hints. It stops short of stating permissions or what happens on partial worker failure, so not 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then side effects, then non-idempotency, then the follow-up call. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 six-parameter create tool with a full output schema, the description covers the mutation's side effects, the duplicate-call hazard, and the natural next step, and notes the structuredContent return. Only auth/prerequisite context is absent, which is minor given the annotation and schema coverage.

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% and the schema already documents enums, length limits, the 1–10 id range, and the validation-then-write failure behavior for record_ids. The description only restates that linkage is optional and which record types are valid, adding no format or ordering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Creates a task") and immediately qualifies scope with the optional record linkage naming the record types (company, person, deal). An agent can distinguish it from heliyos_tasks_list/get/update/run without opening another 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 explicit routing advice: to have workers act on the task now, call heliyos_tasks_run with the returned id. That is a clear alternative-and-condition statement. It does not state when a task should be created at all versus, say, a note, but the alternative path within the task lifecycle is well covered.

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