Create Subtask

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation (creates) and clarifies the parent-child relationship ('Subtasks are tasks with a parent'), which adds useful behavioral context. It also mentions the return value ('Returns the created subtask object'). Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, and no contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and key context. Each sentence serves a purpose: definition, clarification, and pointer to related tool. No redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity and rich schema (all 7 parameters documented), the description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose, the parent constraint, and return value. It does not explain optional fields or edge cases, but these are already in the schema, so the description remains complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has 100% coverage, so descriptive parameter info is already present. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond noting the parent task context in the text, which is already reflected in the schema property description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high 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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('subtask under an existing task'), and distinguishes it from creating a top-level task by emphasizing the parent relationship. It also notes that the tool returns the created subtask object.

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 implies when to use it (when you need a subtask under an existing parent task) and mentions an alternative for listing subtasks ('Use asana_get_subtasks to list existing subtasks'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with asana_create_task or other creation tools, so usage boundaries are not fully explicit.

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