task_create

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose attachment semantics — tasks are 'attached directly to the project and visible on the project task wall' — which is useful beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, side effects, or failure behavior for what is clearly 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then supporting detail. No filler or repetition; every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents parameters. For a create tool with no annotations, the description adequately conveys what is made and where it lives, though it omits permission prerequisites and any side effects the creation may trigger.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema (title, horizon, priority, auto_start, project_id, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new task in a project') and immediately distinguishes its scope with '(not bound to a team)', separating it from team-scoped task creation. An agent can tell from the first line exactly what this tool produces and where it lives.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Suitable for planning-phase tasks not yet assigned to a team,' which tells the agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative sibling for team-bound task creation, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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