createTask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain key behavior such as how TaskEndEpochTime should be set (start + duration) and includes a concrete example. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether the task is added to a persistent calendar), permission requirements, or reversibility. The absence of this information for a mutation tool leaves some ambiguity.

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 well-structured with clear sections (TASK TYPES, SCHEDULING WORKOUTS, EXAMPLE) and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The included example is somewhat long but earns its place by illustrating the parameter relationships. It could be slightly more concise, but every part contributes useful 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?

Given the tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering the most important aspects: task types, scheduling logic, and a realistic example. It references uploadCustomWorkout as a prerequisite for custom workout IDs, which aids context. It does not explain all parameters, but the schema already does that, so the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining which taskTypeId to use for events vs. workouts, how TaskEndEpochTime relates to start + duration, and the fact that E_Simple_Workout covers both custom and standard workouts. The example ties several parameters together in a realistic scenario, which is valuable.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Create a calendar task to schedule events, workouts, or free rides.' It then enumerates the three task types, making it obvious what the tool does. The mention of scheduling workouts and events distinguishes it from sibling tools like uploadCustomWorkout (which uploads but does not schedule) and deleteTask (which removes).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to schedule events, workouts, or free rides. It gives specific guidance for workouts (using E_Simple_Workout, setting TaskTypeId to the workout ID) and references uploadCustomWorkout as a source for workout IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for other scheduling scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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