create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful workflow trait: agent-created tasks are provisional in the inbox and are not ready until a developer confirms and orders them. It omits other behavior an agent would want — what is returned (e.g. the new task id), whether duplicate or invalid dependency ids cause failure, and whether anything is auto-approved by riskLevel.

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?

Purpose and inbox/provisional status are front-loaded, and the subsequent sentences all carry actionable rules rather than filler. The two parallel 'Before creating a task…' / 'When creating a task…' openers are somewhat redundant and could be merged, but nothing is off-topic.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the things the schema cannot: inbox staging, the confirmation gate, and acceptance-criteria quality rules. Only the return value and failure modes are unaddressed, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 71%, so baseline is 3; the description adds valuable meaning for acceptanceCriteria and objective (independently verifiable result plus matching verification, no smuggled implementation constraints). However, its only nod to a named parameter is "the model label," which does not obviously map to actorLabel, and dependencyIds, sourceTaskId, and riskLevel are left entirely to the 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 gives a specific verb and resource — "Record one newly discovered task in the project's inbox" — including the singular scope and destination. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_tasks (batch) or edit_inbox_task, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions and a clear when-not: only proceed if the agent can state the observable outcome, exclusions, and verification; otherwise ask the developer instead of guessing. It does not mention alternatives such as create_tasks for multiple tasks or sourceTaskId-scoped follow-ups, so the routing guidance is incomplete but the usage gate itself is strong.

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