todo_create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses input formats for dates and importance values but says nothing about mutations being permanent, permission requirements, how time_zone interacts with due_date, or what the call returns — significant gaps for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the format constraints; nothing is padded. The fragmentary 'importance: low|normal|high' style is terse but readable, so it loses a point only for telegraphic phrasing rather than waste.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain list_id sourcing, time_zone semantics, and the effect of the call. It covers only the value formats, leaving the agent to guess at the most consequential inputs.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates for the non-obvious parameters: date formats for due_date/reminder_date, allowed values for importance, and the meaning of body. It leaves time_zone (which defaults to UTC and likely governs how date strings are interpreted), list_id, and title entirely unexplained, so coverage is only 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a To Do task' clearly distinguishes creating a task from creating a list. However, with a sibling planner_create_task in the tool set, the description never explains the To Do vs Planner distinction, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name prefix alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus todo_update_task (for adding to existing tasks) or planner_create_task (for Planner items). The prerequisites are unstated — nothing says list_id must reference an existing list obtainable from todo_list_lists or todo_find_list.

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