create_task

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral details like error handling, idempotency, and side effects. It mentions 'schema validation' but does not explain what happens on validation failure or if the task is actually created. The presence of a 'dry_run' parameter in the schema hints at preview capability, but the description omits this parameter entirely, leaving ambiguity.

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 moderately concise with a clear 'Args' section front-loading purpose and parameter details. It avoids unnecessary repetition but could be slightly more compact by merging some examples.

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 7 parameters and no schema coverage, the description covers most parameters adequately and includes a usage prerequisite. However, it lacks details on the return format (though output schema exists) and does not elaborate on validation behavior or what constitutes a successful creation. The omission of 'dry_run' is a notable gap.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for most parameters: 'description' (imperative, actionable), 'project' (dot-notation), 'priority' (H/M/L), 'tags' (list), 'due' (ISO or relative), and 'extra_fields' (UDA fields). However, it fails to describe the 'dry_run' parameter, which is present in the schema but undocumented in the description.

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 'Create a new Taskwarrior task with schema validation', specifying the action and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_task' or 'modify_task' by name, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools like 'batch_create_tasks' or 'create_subtask'.

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 advises to 'Call get_schema_info first to see required and available fields', providing a helpful prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state conditions under which it should not be used.

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