create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (creation) and the return value (the task with ID), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or side effects beyond creation. For a straightforward create operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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: two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple create tool with 6 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and return value. There is no mention of error cases, but the schema and simple nature make this sufficient. No output schema means the description appropriately explains the return. Overall, it is complete enough 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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'in a project' aligns with the project_id parameter but does not go beyond it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 tool's action: 'Create a new task in a project.' It specifies the resource (task) and the context (project), and mentions the return value (the created task with its ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tasks or update_task.

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 implies usage through the verb 'Create' and the resource 'task', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_task). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so while the purpose is clear, the guidance is only implied.

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