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. 'Create a new task' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose.

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?

For a complex creation tool with 2 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the task domain, required inputs beyond the schema, expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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?

The description mentions no parameters, while the schema has 2 parameters (properties and associations) with 0% schema description coverage. The schema itself documents nested properties like hs_task_subject and hs_task_status, but the description adds zero semantic context about what these mean or how to use them, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Create a new task' clearly states the verb and resource, but it's vague about what constitutes a 'task' in this context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_create' or 'engagement_details_create'. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the task domain or system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_batch_create' for multiple tasks or 'tasks_update' for modifying existing ones. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic action.

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