create_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether tasks are created immediately or queued, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 task creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what parameters are needed, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning all parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for this gap. However, the tool has only 1 top-level parameter ('items'), which is an array of task objects, making the baseline reasonable at 3 despite the lack of parameter explanation.

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 description clearly states the action ('Create new tasks') and target system ('in Todoist'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_projects' or 'create_labels' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_tasks' or 'create_projects', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for task creation. It's a bare statement of functionality.

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