tasks_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as 'Create durable async task handle', implying a write operation, but does not state behavior such as whether this is idempotent, whether it requires authentication, what the 'durability' entails (persistence, lifecycle, error handling), or return behavior. The gap is significant.

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 of 7 words, which is concise. However, it sacrifices clarity and usefulness for brevity. It does front-load the key concept 'Create durable async task handle', but the lack of detail makes it less helpful overall.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, optional, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema (which the description does not utilize), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a task handle is, how parameters like ttl_ms affect behavior, or what the output contains. Sibling tools like tasks_get and tasks_cancel suggest a workflow, but no context is provided.

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 the description adds no information about parameters. The three parameters (ttl_ms, metadata, tool_name) are not mentioned at all. For instance, the agent cannot infer that tool_name might link to another tool for execution or that metadata is free-form. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 states 'Create durable async task handle', which specifies the verb 'create' and the resource 'durable async task handle'. While it communicates the basic action, the term 'Tasks extension' is vague and doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like tasks_get, tasks_cancel, or tasks_stats, which are all related to tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_get or tasks_cancel. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for async task creation, or when to choose this over other tools. The description lacks any explicit or implied usage context.

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