bort_task_create

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 does not state whether the call requires permissions, what defaults apply to the many optional fields (status, priority, deadline), or what is returned on success; for a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 7 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin for an agent to invoke it correctly. At minimum the field meanings and defaults needed documenting.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to the project_id/project_name pair and says nothing about notes, title, status, deadline, or priority, leaving the majority of parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Создать задачу' = create a task) and scopes it to a project, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like bort_task_update and bort_task_close. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 only guidance is the parenthetical '(project_id или project_name)', which hints at two ways to identify the project but never says when to use one over the other or when this tool applies versus task_update/task_close. There is no when/when-not context.

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