创建经营任务

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and the description adds a key behavioral constraint: decisions needing approval must pass through decision_review. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether the task is persisted immediately, failure modes, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a key prerequisite. No wasted words, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the main purpose and a critical condition but leaves gaps: the purpose of decision_id, the format of due_at, and what happens on success or failure. It's adequate but not fully complete for an agent to call it without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions owner, due date, and acceptance criteria, which maps to owner, due_at, and acceptance_criteria. It does not explain decision_id or project_id beyond implicit context, nor does it specify the date-time format. The description adds partial meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: converting explicit suggestions into local tasks with owner, due date, and acceptance criteria. It distinguishes itself from decision tools by referencing decision_review as a prerequisite, making the purpose specific and 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?

It explicitly tells when not to use this tool: if a decision requires manual approval, it must first go through decision_review. This points to the alternative tool and the condition, though it doesn't cover all sibling comparisons (e.g., task_update). The guidance is clear for the primary alternative.

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