Add a task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default filing behavior (Tasks section, or today's daily note when no note is given) and that the task is a checkbox item, but it omits whether a missing note gets created, error behavior, and what is returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and destination. No wasted words, and the useful default-behavior detail is included rather than padded.

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 five-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and default placement but leaves gaps: behavior when the target note does not exist, and whether/how success is reported. Adequate but with clear omissions.

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 80%, so the schema already documents due, note, text, and heading. The description adds little beyond restating due-date and priority support, and the priority enum still has no description anywhere. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (add) and resource (a checkbox task) plus the destination (a project's Tasks section or today's daily note). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like complete_task, update_task, and list_tasks, which operate on existing tasks rather than creating new ones.

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?

It implies when to use it by describing the default destination (daily note if no note given) and what it supports (due date, priority). However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from alternatives such as update_task or complete_task, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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