add_subtask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: 'Add' makes the mutation explicit, the one-level nesting limit is non-obvious and disclosed, and the return value (new subtask with 'parent' set) is described. It omits permissions/preconditions (e.g., must the parent exist) and any error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the most important constraint. Every sentence adds distinct value (purpose, nesting limit, options reference, return shape) with zero filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious facts: nesting limit, shared option set, and return value. Remaining gaps (due format, permission/precondition requirements) are minor given the cross-reference to create_reminder.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the five optional parameters (due/notes/priority/flagged/notify) but defers their actual meaning to create_reminder rather than defining formats (e.g., due's expected format). parent_id and title are left to their obvious names, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Add a subtask under a reminder') and immediately clarifies the scope: it lives in the parent's list. The one-level nesting constraint cleanly distinguishes it from create_reminder without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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?

Clearly establishes context and a key constraint: the app nests only one level, so a subtask cannot itself have subtasks. It also routes the agent to create_reminder for the shared option semantics. It stops short of explicitly comparing alternatives or stating exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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