add_research_task

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

Annotations already establish this is a write operation that is neither idempotent nor destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context by disclosing the internal write shape (Source tagged ToDo, Status 'Open', a Priority, and the description stored as a To Do note). It does not mention potential duplicate creation despite idempotentHint=false, nor any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action and its target front-loaded and the cautionary rule last. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the name or schema alone.

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 7-parameter, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers what it creates and the key domain constraint well. The remaining gap is the response (whether the created task's identifier is returned) and duplicate-creation behavior, which would help an agent chain a follow-up update_research_task call.

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, but the description adds semantic framing beyond the schema: it explains that this is written as a Source with the description as a To Do note and a Status of 'Open', which explains how priority/description map onto stored fields. It still says nothing about tags or allow_new_type behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a research task to Gramps Web's own task list (its Tasks view)') and pins it to the Tasks view, which cleanly separates it from list_research_tasks and update_research_task. The second sentence clarifies what artifact is actually produced, so the agent knows this is not note/citation creation.

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 a clear positive context (modeling a task the way Gramps Web's New Task form does) plus a hard exclusion: 'A task is a to-do, never evidence: never cite it,' which steers the agent away from representing this as a source of evidence. It does not name sibling alternatives such as update_research_task for later modification, so it falls short of requiring the top score.

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