create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new task' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 input schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, no constraints beyond schema). Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Create a new task' clearly states the action (create) and resource (task), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'create_tag' beyond the resource name. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what kind of task system this is or what distinguishes it from other creation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_note', 'create_tag', and 'update_task', there's no indication of when task creation is appropriate versus note creation or task updates. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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