create-task-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that this creates a top-level container (not a nested one), which is a useful behavioral detail, and the create operation's mutating nature is evident. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or behavior on duplicate names, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this gap.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundant or extraneous words. The structure is clean and easily parseable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does and hints at the purpose. It does not explain return values, but since no output schema exists, that is not necessary. Minor omissions like error handling or authentication do not detract significantly for this straightforward create 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?

The input schema already describes displayName with 'Name of the new task list' (100% coverage). The tool description adds semantic context by suggesting the name should reflect a 'category or project', which guides the agent on what value to provide for the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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') and the specific resource ('a new task list (top-level container)') within Microsoft Todo. It also conveys the purpose ('organize your tasks into categories or projects') and 'top-level container' distinguishes it from creating tasks or subtasks, making it distinct from siblings like create-task.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to create a top-level container for tasks) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like create-task or update-task-list. The phrase 'top-level container' hints at the distinction, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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