m365_tasks_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value on top: it states what is returned (task ID, title, status) and gives duplicate-avoidance guidance for a non-idempotent create, which is exactly the risk the idempotentHint=false flag implies. It does not mention required permissions/scopes, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the prerequisite, then the return value, then the retry/alternative guidance. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields. All five parameters are documented at 100% coverage in the schema, and the non-idempotent create risk plus sibling alternatives are covered, so an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, including the listId provenance and the UTC/ISO 8601 due-date caveat, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the listId source (m365_tasks_lists) and adds nothing about the optional body, importance, or due fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a task in an existing Microsoft To Do list') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling m365_tasks_lists by clarifying that this does not create a task list. An agent can distinguish it from m365_tasks_update and m365_tasks_list without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes to m365_tasks_lists for obtaining listId, to m365_tasks_update for editing/completing, and to m365_tasks_list before retrying an uncertain creation. Both the when and the alternatives are named explicitly.

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