weeek_create_task

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that names or ids are accepted and that omitting assignee self-assigns, but says nothing about permissions/auth, whether the assignee is notified, or what the call returns — the latter matters because `parent` requires a task id. Adequate but with real gaps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first four words, followed by a compact enumeration of inputs and two short routing sentences. It is dense but each clause carries information; the list style is slightly long but nothing is redundant.

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 10-parameter creation tool with a nested `fields` object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the parameters and the id-lookup convenience well. It omits the return value and any side effects, but the coverage is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20%, the description compensates well: it explains that project/column/assignee accept a name or id, that `due` is natural language, that `parent` makes the task a subtask, and that `fields` takes custom-field values keyed by field name (global and project fields). Only minor gaps remain (e.g. `description` and default column behavior).

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a WEEEK task') and then enumerates the accepted inputs, which lets an agent distinguish it from weeek_update_task, weeek_create_tasks (bulk), and the assignee-management siblings. The mention of weeek_add_assignees / weeek_remove_assignees further draws the boundary against sibling tools.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: 'One call — no need to look up ids first,' 'Omit `assignee` to self-assign,' and routes later assignee changes to weeek_add_assignees / weeek_remove_assignees. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. bulk creation vs weeek_create_tasks), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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