task_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 mentions task scope and visibility but omits side effects (e.g., triggers, notifications) and authorization needs. The presence of an output schema mitigates return value ambiguity, but the description could add more behavioral context.

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 contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and context (project-level, planning-phase). However, it could be more complete by explaining post-creation behavior and how this tool relates to siblings like task_run or task_auto_match. Still, it is fairly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, except for noting that task_type is deprecated and suggesting an alternative (CC Workflow). This is useful but does not significantly raise the score above 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 verb (create), resource (task in project), and distinguishes from team-level tasks. It also explains the context (visible on project task wall) and suitability for planning-phase tasks, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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 suggests using this tool for planning-phase tasks not assigned to a team, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for team projects, which would further improve guidance.

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