create_task

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It only says 'Create a new task' without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions, side effects, or constraints on document state. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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 uses a clear docstring format with an introductory line and an Args section. It is well-structured and readable, though the parameter list repeats information present in the schema, making it slightly longer than necessary. However, it remains concise overall.

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 10 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema presumably documenting return values, the description covers all input semantics thoroughly. It does not explain return values, which is acceptable given the output schema. Some behavioral context is missing, but overall it is sufficiently complete for parameter usage.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description provides detailed explanations for all 10 parameters, including examples like 'effort_seconds: Total effort in person-seconds (e.g. 14400 for 4h)'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 action 'Create a new task' and the resource 'OmniPlan document', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_task' and 'delete_task', and the singular 'task' differentiates from batch 'create_tasks'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Since there is a sibling 'create_tasks' for batch creation, the description should mention when to use the singular version. The description omits any usage context or when-not-to-use.

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