keel_create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the behavioral burgen. It reveals the critical edge case that an unparseable dueAt is silently ignored, and tells the agent to send valid ISO-8601 or omit it. It also clarifies the return value. It does not describe error responses or authorization, but this is sufficient for a simple create operation.

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 two sentences long with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the return value is stated, and the important edge case is appended compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple create tool with three flat parameters and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers the operation, the return contract, and the one non-obvious behavioral trap. It does not discuss authentication or error stauses, but those are rarely essential for a straightforward create call.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by warning about the silent handling of invalid dueAt values. This extra guidance goes beyond the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a compliance task in the workspace.' It also specifies the return value, 'Returns the new task id,' which removes ambiguity. The resource is distinct from sibling tools like keel_create_risk or keell_create_vendor, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: use it to create a compliance task rather than list tasks or create other entities. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor list excluded cases. This is adequate but not explicit.

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