Criar uma tarefa simples (sua)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows it is a non-read, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by clarifying behavioral constraints: the task is personal without an assignee, and it does not register demand-specific fields (objetivo, entrega, critério de pronto). This goes beyond simple write semantics and helps the agent understand the tool's limitations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and immediately contrasts with the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 6 parameters, reasonable schema descriptions, annotations, and a clear usage boundary, the description covers the essential context. The only minor gap is the absence of information about return values (e.g., whether it returns the created task), but given the simplicity and the effective use of alternative tool guidance, this is not a critical omission.

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 67% (4 of 6 params have descriptions). The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mentions what the task isn't (no assignee, no demand fields) but does not explain the meaning of parameters like priority or description. The schema already covers most fields, so a baseline of 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?

The description uses the verb 'Cria' (creates) and specifies the resource as 'uma tarefa SUA, sem responsável' (your own task, without assignee), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool systemtask_demand_create. The contrast is explicit: 'Para trabalho que vai para OUTRA PESSOA, use systemtask_demand_create', making the purpose 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?

The description provides both when to use ('um lembrete, uma anotação, algo que você mesmo vai fazer') and when not to use ('Para trabalho que vai para OUTRA PESSOA'), naming the alternative tool and explaining why that tool is better suited. This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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