cor_create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses required inputs and optional parameters but does not mention side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a creation tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences. The bilingual format adds slight redundancy, but it is not excessive. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (purpose, required params) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the creation action and required fields but omits details on response behavior (e.g., returning created task object) or error conditions.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'name' and 'projectId' as required and lists optional fields (status, priority, assignee, due date) but provides no additional semantics beyond what the schema already defines.

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 purpose: creating a new task in COR within a project. It specifies required parameters (name and projectId) and optional ones. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling cor_update_task, relying on the verb 'create' to imply difference.

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 that this tool is used to create a new task, but it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like cor_update_task for existing tasks. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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