tasks_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully state that setting parent creates a subtask and that due dates must be RFC3339, but it omits other behavioral details such as the handling of tasklist_id (which has a default of '@default') or any permissions/reversibility implications of creating a task.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Create a new task'), followed by concise critical details. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

The description covers the essential create action and two important parameter aspects, but given the tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, it should also explain the role of tasklist_id and perhaps note that parent expects a task ID. The output schema exists which covers return value, so that omission is not penalized. Overall, it is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining all parameters. It only clarifies 'parent' (for subtasks) and 'due' (RFC3339 format), leaving 'title', 'notes', and 'tasklist_id' without additional meaning beyond their names and schema defaults. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 task' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tasks_update, tasks_delete, and tasks_move. It also adds two concrete scoping details: 'Set parent for subtasks' and 'Due date in RFC3339 format', which help identify the tool's exact purpose.

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 phrase 'Create a new task' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the mention of parent and due date implies use cases for subtasks and dated tasks. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as tasks_create_tasklist or tasks_update, so it misses explicit exclusion guidance.

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