Create Task

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the creation action, the requirement to call start after, and the consequence of skipping estimated_minutes (exclusion from estimation analysis). This adds behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not discuss potential failures or side effects, but is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, usage guideline, arguments list, and return info. It front-loads the key usage instruction. While the 'Args:' section repeats parameter names, it is not overly verbose. It efficiently conveys essential information without wasted sentences.

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 absence of an output schema, the description mentions 'Returns: Created task', which is adequate. It covers all 6 parameters, usage timing, and next steps (call start). It could be enhanced by mentioning error conditions or required permissions, but for a creation tool with clear guidance, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is only 17% (only estimated_minutes has a description). The tool description adds meaningful semantic context for all 6 parameters: explains workflow_id ('Which workflow'), title ('What you're doing'), priority enum values, estimated_minutes importance with explicit advice to guess if unsure, and optional nature of description and parent_task_id. This compensates fully for the sparse 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 explicitly states 'Create a task within a workflow' with a clear verb and resource. It provides context for when to call it ('beginning any discrete piece of work that will take more than ~5 minutes'), which helps distinguish from other task-related tools like cph_task_start or cph_task_update, though it does not explicitly compare.

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 explicit when-to-use ('beginning any discrete piece of work... >5 minutes') and when-not-to ('Create BEFORE starting work, not after'). It also directs the agent to call cph_task_start immediately after, providing clear sequential guidance. Sibling tools like cph_task_start are implicitly referenced, offering excellent usage context.

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