agent_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the allowlist gate, that input/output are plaintext and relay-readable (a real privacy exposure), and that it acts as the local credential-store identity. It omits return/confirmation behavior and task lifecycle, which keeps it short of 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?

Four tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the gating condition, then the privacy disclosure. No filler and every sentence adds distinct decision-relevant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts (allowlist gate, plaintext storage, identity). It does not describe success/failure responses or whether task execution is async, a minor remaining gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning, reinforcing that `to` is a recipient and `input` is plaintext, without clarifying `capability` or `priority` semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a task') plus the target ('for another agent'), which cleanly separates it from list/get/update task siblings. It does not explicitly name agent_broadcast_task as the contrasting one-to-many alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives a concrete when-not: the tool is off by default and refused unless the recipient is in VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOWED_RECIPIENTS, which is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over agent_broadcast_task or agent_send_message, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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