create_task

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds real behavioral context: the Google write-permission requirement and an explicit non-idempotency warning with a recovery heuristic. It does not describe what is returned, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core verb and scope come first. Slightly fragmented by the line breaks, but every sentence carries useful information.

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 an existing output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the remaining burden is prerequisites and placement semantics, both of which are addressed. A minor gap is the absence of cross-references to sibling tools for follow-up actions.

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 low (17%), so the description must compensate. It does: "optionally as a subtask or after a sibling" explains the otherwise opaque parent_id/previous_id semantics, and "due is a calendar date, never a time" reinforces the date format constraint. Notes and title remain undocumented but are self-evident.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a task") and immediately clarifies the two placement variants (subtask via parent, ordering after a sibling), which are non-obvious behaviors of this tool. It does not name siblings, but create vs update/move is unambiguous.

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 gives one concrete conditional rule — check the list before repeating a call when the outcome is unknown — and notes the write-permission prerequisite. However, it offers no explicit alternatives (e.g., use update_task to modify or move_task to reposition), so guidance is partial rather than complete.

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