tasks_create

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 'create', implying a write operation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., auto-assign defaults), authentication requirements, or rate limits. More context is needed for a mutation tool.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient but perhaps too minimal; however, it earns its place without wasted words.

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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description lacks context for a tool with 12 parameters. It does not mention return value (likely the created task), constraints (e.g., title uniqueness), or that projectId must reference an existing project. The description alone is insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter (projectId, title, description, etc.). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'create a new task'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.

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 'Create a new task in a project', specifying the verb (create) and resource (task). It distinguishes from siblings like tasks_update, tasks_delete, tasks_get, and tasks_list, which have different operations. The scope 'in a project' is also clear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or situations where tasks_update or task_assignees_add might be more appropriate. There is no 'when-not' or explicit alternatives.

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