create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write with side effects (item appears immediately) and returns the created item with id. However, it omits any mention of authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or reversibility. These gaps lower the score from ideal.

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 concise, with a clear header ('WRITE.') and three tightly-written sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, explaining usage, noting side effects, and pointing to return value and alternative. 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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, behavior, return value, and sibling reference. It does not elaborate on return format but hints at the structure. It could mention default handling (e.g., projectId omitted leads to inbox), but that is documented in the schema. Overall, sufficient for a creation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives general context. No extra detail on format or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'creates' and specifies resource as 'new item (task/note)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'update_task' as an alternative for changing existing items. The phrase 'agent→human write side of the two-way bus' adds unique context that sets it apart from other tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'hand the human a note, action, or reminder'. Provides a clear when-not: 'To change an existing item instead, use update_task'. This direct sibling comparison offers strong guidance for an agent choosing between tools.

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