add_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safe/closed-world profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no side effects, duplicate handling, or permission notes). With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but adds nothing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the core action leads and the parenthetical example is genuinely informative.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a mutation tool the description omits usage guidance and leaves half the parameters undocumented, so it is only minimally complete.

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 only 50% – title and source are documented in the schema, while due and notes are not documented anywhere. The description's reference to the source document (Eingliederungsvereinbarung/Kooperationsplan) loosely maps to the source param but adds no format or syntax detail to compensate for the gap.

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 (add) and resource (to-do/obligation) with a concrete example context (Eingliederungsvereinbarung/Kooperationsplan). Clear what it does, but does not differentiate from siblings like add_appointment or log_correspondence.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The domain example implies it is for obligations from official plans, but an agent gets no routing help among the many sibling creation tools.

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