create_task

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds specific behavioral traits: tasks land unclaimed, labels must already exist, and the tool never invents board structure. These are valuable facts about side effects and constraints. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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, each carrying essential information: the action, the unclaimed state, and the label restriction. No redundant or filler content. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly moves to practical caveats.

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?

The description covers key contextual aspects for a creation tool: placement (todo stage), ownership state (unclaimed), and a critical prerequisite (labels must exist). Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. Missing details like permission requirements are minor given the openWorldHint and clear schema.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load. The description's focus is on tool-level behavior, not individual parameters.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new task in the todo stage of a board.' It also provides use cases ('follow-up work you discovered, or a task you were asked to file') which distinguishes it from other board operations. Sibling tools like claim_task and update_task_details are implicitly differentiated.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool ('follow-up work you discovered, or a task you were asked to file') and states a consequence ('It lands unclaimed, so claim it before working on it'), implicitly recommending claim_task as a follow-up. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it is not a full 5.

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