todoist_create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns task ID). It also doesn't warn about parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond the minimal 'optional' notes.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but the parameter documentation is lengthy (17 items). While necessary given the parameter count, it could be more structured (e.g., grouping related parameters). Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'optional' repeated for each parameter), but overall it's reasonably efficient for the complexity.

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 complex mutation tool with 17 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering parameter semantics but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or system constraints. The parameter documentation is strong, but other aspects are incomplete for a creation tool.

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 0% schema description coverage and 17 parameters, the description provides comprehensive semantic context for every parameter. It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'Natural language due date like 'tomorrow'', 'Task priority from 1 (normal) to 4 (urgent)'), clarifies optionality, and provides format examples that go far beyond what the bare schema offers.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new task in Todoist') and resource ('task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like todoist_update_task or todoist_close_task. It immediately lists key optional fields (description, due date, priority) that help differentiate its scope from other task-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like todoist_update_task or todoist_get_tasks. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project/section IDs from other tools), nor does it clarify when certain parameters are mutually exclusive (e.g., due_string vs due_date). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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