create_task

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds key behavioral details: tasks start unclaimed and labels must already exist, so this tool never invents board structure. These go beyond the basic annotation flags.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then essential behavioral notes. No redundant information or fluff.

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?

With 8 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers core behavior, unclaimed state, and label constraints. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only minimal param-specific context (e.g., default todo stage, label existence), which is largely redundant with schema descriptions.

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 identifies the action (create a new task), the target resource (a board's todo stage), and provides use cases (follow-up work or asked to file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task_details, claim_task, and move_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?

It gives specific context for when to use this tool (follow-up work or filing a task) and notes that the task lands unclaimed, implying you may need to claim it before working. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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