save_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the task persists across sessions and mentions supported status/priority values, but does not cover side effects, return behavior, or idempotency. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences front-loading the core purpose and adding optional context. Every sentence is useful with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite good schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits what happens after creation (e.g., returns task ID or confirmation). For a write tool with 5 parameters, this gap hinders the agent's understanding of the full operation.

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 reinforces enum values already in the schema but adds no new meaning beyond listing them. No parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 it creates a task that persists across sessions, specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'task'. It distinguishes from read tools like get_tasks by focusing on creation, and from update_task by implication. The mention of persistence adds valuable context.

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 suggests using it for multi-session continuity but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_task or bulk_delete. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer alternatives.

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