create_task

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

With no annotations, the description explains fallback behavior for optional fields to .kanboard.yaml defaults and states the return format '{ task_id } on success'. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but adds valuable context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, project resolution, optional field fallback, and return value. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of extraneous 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?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior (creation, project resolution, optional field fallback) and return format. It omits error handling but is reasonably complete for a straightforward creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining project resolution logic and fallback behavior for specific parameters, but does not deepen understanding of individual parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new task in a Kanboard project'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_subtask and create_comment by specifying the resource type. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_subtask, create_comment). It mentions project resolution but lacks comparison or prerequisites. This omission is significant given many sibling tools.

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