Create task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It usefully states this is a write operation, that the assignee defaults to the signed-in user, and that there is a two-phase preview/confirm flow. However, much of the confirm workflow is already documented in the schema's confirm parameter, and it omits permissions, idempotency, side effects, and notification behavior.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's confirm description, but the overall structure is tight and easy to parse.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a few key defaults but leaves many parameters and behavioral aspects unexplained. It is adequate to start a call but not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation in edge cases.

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 only 30%, so the description must compensate. It adds genuinely useful semantics not in the schema: the assignee defaults to the signed-in user, and the matter is optional. But it leaves name, description, task_type_id, notify_assignee, and statute_of_limitations undocumented, so coverage of the 10-param surface is incomplete.

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') plus scope ('for a matter (or a general one)'), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from read tools like clio_task_list. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (clio_task_update), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 gives workflow guidance ('preview first, then confirm'), which is a form of when-to-use, but it names no alternative tool and offers no exclusion conditions (e.g., use clio_task_update to edit an existing task). The 'preview first' instruction also sits in mild tension with the schema's 'use confirm=true directly' guidance, leaving the agent to reconcile them.

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