Create Task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (so it's a write operation). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it states the return value, the default behavior for list_id, and the linking/scheduling effects of feature_id/insight_id/sprint_id. This gives the agent a good behavioral model. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exactly three sentences, each with a distinct and essential contribution: function/return, defaults/linking, and ID-resolution guidance. No filler, no repetition of schema content. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, return value, defaults, linkage behavior, and ID resolution, making it sufficient for correct invocation. It doesn't describe error cases or detailed response shape, but the absence of output schema makes 'return the created task' adequate for an agent to expect the full object.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by consolidating and emphasizing key semantic nuances: the default for list_id, the linkage semantics for feature_id/insight_id, the scheduling meaning of sprint_id, and the explicit rule to resolve via specific tools. This goes beyond the per-field schema descriptions.

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 a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Create a task and return the created task.' It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task and delete_task by stating the creation side effect and the returned result. No ambiguity.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: when creating a task, and it provides essential prerequisites such as resolving IDs via pm_meta and list_sprints, and emphasizing 'never guess them.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection among the similar siblings.

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