Create a task

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

The description reveals a notable behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the server pre-checks task support and returns its own refusal instead of passing the backend's error back to the caller. This is non-obvious and helps the agent interpret failures correctly. It does not contradict the annotations, which already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation.

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 deliver the core action and the one important exception without repeating schema or annotation content. Every clause contributes useful information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and mutation, the description only needs to supply context not available elsewhere. It supplies the critical calendar-acceptance prerequisite and the pre-check behavior. Nothing necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema carry the semantic load. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning list_calendars, which the calendar_id parameter already references.

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 names the exact operation ('Adds a task to a calendar'), the target resource (a task), and the qualifying condition (the calendar must accept tasks, as reported by list_calendars). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_event and create_journal by the object type being created.

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 concrete usage context: consult list_calendars to find a calendar that accepts tasks, and warns that event-only collections will refuse a task. It effectively provides a when-not condition for invalid targets, though it does not explicitly compare against alternative creation tools.

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