create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a task but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a task ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, earning full marks for 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like authentication needs, side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a Kanban board context, which is already suggested by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter details.

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 action ('create') and target resource ('new task on Kanban board'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_comment' or 'update_task' beyond the basic verb distinction, missing explicit comparison.

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 like 'update_task' or 'list_tasks'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing project or board, or when creation is appropriate versus modification.

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