create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — all dates must be UTC+8 local time — which is non-obvious and repeated for every date parameter. However, it says nothing about required permissions/auth, whether the task is returned, error behavior, or duplicate handling.

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 single front-loaded purpose sentence is followed by a tight, consistently formatted parameter list with no filler prose. The bulk is parameter documentation that duplicates the schema's property names, which is necessary given 0% schema description coverage but keeps the block long.

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 10-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters and the timezone rule well. It is still silent on auth requirements, the returned object, and edge behavior (e.g., setting completed_date or status at creation time).

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% and there are 10 parameters, yet the description documents each one with type, optionality, and format. It also supplies enum values absent from the schema ('text'/'html', 'low'/'normal'/'high', and the five status values) plus the ISO 8601 timezone convention, which is exactly the compensation required here.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource in a specific product: '在 Microsoft To Do 中创建新任务'. The create_/update_/list_/delete_/complete_ naming convention across siblings makes the action unambiguous, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'create' verb and the To Do context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as update_task (for existing tasks) or create_calendar_event (for calendar items, which is a realistic confusion in this sibling set).

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