create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action (create) and offers a structural constraint (3–7 steps), but does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens on success or failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's intent and key usage nuance.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool creates, its intended use case, and a key best practice. Given the schema already describes all parameters, the description adds sufficient situational context to enable correct invocation, though it could mention additional constraints or outcome details.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the 3–7 step count for the 'steps' parameter and recommending the use of 'milestone_id', which goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions. It thereby enhances parameter understanding.

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: 'Create a deliverable work item with 3–7 steps.' It specifies the resource (work item) and the action (create), and the phrase 'Use for concrete outcomes that span handoffs or need tracking' differentiates it from simpler task-related tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_task and delete_task.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('Use for concrete outcomes that span handoffs or need tracking') and offers a preference ('Prefer linking it to a milestone via milestone_id'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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