Create Task

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds that it returns the created task object and suggests using memberships for section placement, which is useful context. 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?

Two sentences, first gives purpose, second gives guidance and return. No fluff, well-structured.

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?

While the schema is rich, the description does not clarify whether project_id is still required when supplying memberships (since project_id is listed as required). It also doesn't discuss potential errors or edge cases, but covers the main purpose and return. Given the complexity, a bit more guidance on parameter interplay would be helpful.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description emphasizes a preference for memberships over project_id, but this is already stated in the schema's project_id description, so it adds minimal new semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new task'). It also mentions the return value, distinguishing it from other creation tools like create_subtask or create_project based on the object type.

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 an implied usage context: use this whenever you need to create a task. It provides a parameter-level preference (memberships over project_id) but does not explicitly contrast with create_subtask or other sibling tools, so there is no when-not guidance.

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