add_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and fields, omitting behavioral details such as return value, idempotency, duplicate handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded Spanish sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and inputs.

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 tool is simple, but the description lacks key contextual details such as what is returned after creation, constraints on the task (e.g., uniqueness), or how it relates to the sibling 'complete_task'. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the parameters ('nombre, descripcion y prioridad') without adding new meaning or usage context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'agrega' (adds) and the resource 'nueva tarea' (new task), mentioning the three fields. It is specific and avoids tautology. It could be a 5 if it distinguished from the sibling 'complete_task', but it does not.

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 usage for creating tasks, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives to the sibling tool 'complete_task'. The context is clear from the name, but no exclusions or guidance is given, so a middle score is appropriate.

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