ticktick_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: the return format including _verification_warnings, the warning added when due_date is missing, the exact handling of project_id (name or ID, case-insensitive, error on duplicate names), the requirement and mismatch error for expected_day_of_week, and a known limitation about the builder() omitting fields. This is exceptional transparency.

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 (Args, Returns, Limitations, Agent Usage Guide, Example). It is long but every sentence adds meaningful information; the format is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section is appropriately placed. No redundancy or 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 complex tool with 14 parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: complete parameter documentation, return value structure, error handling, a real usage example, and a known limitation. Combined with the output schema presence, this provides a comprehensive understanding for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, placing the full burden on the description. It gives detailed semantics for every parameter: types, defaults, constraints, and format examples (e.g., ISO 8601 dates, TRIGGER:-PT30M, RFC 5545 RRULE, priority mapping). This goes far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 opening sentence "Create a new task." states a clear verb and resource, unambiguously distinguishing this tool from siblings like update, delete, and complete. The description then elaborates on the specific parameters and behavior of creation, leaving no doubt about its purpose.

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 Agent Usage Guide provides practical instructions: always pair due_date with expected_day_of_week, and pass a project name directly or list ids with ticktick_get_all(search='projects'). It gives clear context for using the tool correctly, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with alternative tools, so it falls just 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.