task_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says that a new task is created and title is required, without revealing the effect beyond that (e.g., return value, default status behavior, reference validation, whether duplicates are allowed). For a mutating action, this is a notable transparency gap.

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 only three short sentences and front-loads the core action. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: purpose, required vs. optional fields, and how tag_ids relates to tags. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential basics but leaves gaps: it does not explain what an agent should expect back from the call, whether referenced tags/projects need to exist, or any preconditions. It is adequate for a simple call but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the 100% schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds the useful summary that title is required and other fields are optional, and explains tag_ids as linking tags, but it largely paraphrases what the schema already provides.

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 opens with "添加一个新任务" ('add a new task'), which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is unambiguous relative to siblings like task_update, task_list, and task_delete, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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: an agent will call this when it needs to create a new task, especially to be used before subsequent updates/reviews. There is no explicit mention of when to prefer it over task_update or how to prepare IDs such as project_id or tag_ids, so the guidance is minimal.

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