everhour_create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing consequences (e.g., creation is permanent, requires existing project, returns task ID) or any side effects. The phrase 'Create a new task' is minimal and provides no deeper behavioral insight.

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 sentence of six words, which is concise in length. However, it essentially restates the tool name ('everhour_create_task' → 'Create a new task'), providing no new information. It's not under-specified, but it also doesn't earn its place by adding value.

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 tool has 7 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention return values, required project context, or how this fits within the broader Everhour workflow. The schema covers parameters but the description lacks usability context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it just repeats the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description contributes nothing extra.

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') and the resource ('a new task in Everhour'), which is specific and distinct from read/update/delete operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_project or create_time_record, though the task entity is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_task, add_time_to_task). It doesn't mention prerequisites like the need for a project ID, which is required by the schema. The description is purely declarative with no context.

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