ghl_project_create_list_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the response shape `{ "task": { … } }` with no embedded subtasks, the server-derived statusGroup, single-assignee enforcement, and body sanitization. It stops short of describing rate limits or error conditions, so not 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?

The definition opens with a multi-sentence project-management preamble about hierarchy, batch-get RBAC, lexorank positions, recurring-task field names, search filtering, and delete cascades — almost none of which matters for creating a task. The actual creation guidance is buried mid-paragraph, so the useful content is not front-loaded and much of the text does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return envelope and its missing subtasks, plus endpoint, auth scope, required fields, and format conventions. For a create mutation this is close to complete; only error/failure behavior is unaddressed.

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 100% and the nested body schema documents each field, including the dueDate ISO/Unix round-trip and the single-element assignees constraint. The description mostly restates those same facts, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Creates a task in this list as its home list") and states the home-list semantics and required fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like ghl_contact_create_task, ghl_project_create_recurring_task, or ghl_project_add_list_task, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied: it tells you to set parentTaskId for a subtask and mentions the assignees/contactId split versus recurring tasks, but it never states when to pick this tool over ghl_contact_create_task or ghl_project_add_list_task, nor any prerequisites beyond the OAuth scope line.

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