weeek_create_task

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 discloses that `due` accepts natural language, that assignee omission results in self-assignment to the token owner, and that reassignment of existing tasks is not supported by the WEEEK API. This goes beyond a simple 'creates a task' and provides meaningful constraints for the agent.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, parameter flexibility, efficiency, assignee behavior, and API limitation. It is front-loaded with the action, and no sentence is redundant or verbose. It packs significant guidance into a compact form.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is remarkably complete for a create tool. It covers required vs optional behavior, parameter formats, self-assignment logic, and an API limitation. The only minor omission is the return value, but that is often obvious for a create operation and is not essential given the clarity of the description.

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 is the only source of parameter semantics. It clearly explains that project/column/assignee accept either name or id, that `due` is a natural-language date, and that assignee has special omission behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types and refs.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Create a WEEEK task." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like weeek_update_task, weeek_delete_task, and weeek_list_tasks. It further clarifies scope with "One call — no need to look up ids first," adding a unique value proposition.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states that project/column/assignee can be passed by name or id, eliminating the need for prior lookups. It also gives conditional instructions for assignee (omit for self-assign, pass name/id for someone else) and explicitly warns that reassigning an existing task is unsupported, steering users toward creation-time assignment rather than attempting updates.

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