Give an agent a task

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent); the description adds the substantive lifecycle trait that the task is saved as a Draft and will not execute until a human approves it. It also discloses a non-obvious constraint that the Voice agent cannot receive tasks, which the agent enum alone would not reveal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then lifecycle, then routing constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers lifecycle, approval gating and a routing exclusion. The only mild gap is that it does not indicate what is returned (e.g., a task identifier) after creation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the meaningful clarification that the task is for exactly one agent (the 'agent' param is singular, not a list). It does not elaborate on tier or instructions semantics, which the schema already covers adequately.

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 and resource ('Creates a task for one agent') and immediately clarifies the scope is a single agent. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_task, list_tasks and cancel_task without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('Narla Voice does not take tasks; send changes for it to Narla Ops') and indicates the task lands in a pre-approval Draft state. It does not, however, say how this relates to modifying an existing task versus creating a new one, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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