Create Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: Google Tasks cannot store a time or a reminder. It does not mention that repeating the call duplicates tasks (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what the call returns.

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 paragraphs plus a single arrow-style example, with the core action front-loaded and the date constraint immediately after. No sentence is redundant; the example is the only elaboration and it carries real 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?

For a 6-parameter create tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description fills the highest-risk gap (day-only due dates, no reminders) and shows a realistic invocation. It is nearly sufficient, with the only real omission being the absence of any note about duplicate creation on retry.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the example earns a step up because it demonstrates how to decompose a natural-language request: the action becomes title="Call the bank" and the date becomes due="2026-11-10", while the word "remind" is correctly dropped. That mapping guidance is meaningfully beyond the field descriptions, though other parameters (notes, parent, list_id, response_format) get no mention.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Create a task in a list") that an agent can distinguish from gtasks_create_task_list, gtasks_update_task, and gtasks_get_task without opening the schema. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and the worked example make clear this is for creating new tasks, and the example shows how to map a user utterance into title/due. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. no pointer to gtasks_update_task for modifying an existing task or a warning that a re-run creates a duplicate.

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