tasks_create

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about the 'due' parameter — that it is RFC3339 and Google ignores the time part — which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the crucial due-date nuance in a single additional sentence. No wasted words.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what 'tasklist' expects (e.g., ID vs name), how 'notes' behave, what the return value is, or how to handle required parameters beyond the schema's structural requirements.

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, the description must compensate, but it only explains 'due' and leaves 'title', 'tasklist', and 'notes' completely undocumented. The provided parameter detail is helpful but insufficient for the other three parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Add a task' — which unambiguously states what the tool does. It differentiates naturally from sibling tools like tasks_list and tasks_complete by the action performed.

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 implies when to use the tool (when adding a task) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is given for when to prefer tasks_complete or tasks_list, though the sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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