commonly_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real behavior beyond the schema: re-sends return the existing task, done tasks are reopened to pending with reopened: true, and the reopened task's assignee is overwritten by whatever this call passes (omission leaves it unassigned). That is an important destructive side effect clearly surfaced. It omits permissions/auth requirements and the exact response payload shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with parameter semantics in roughly priority order, with zero filler sentences. It is a dense single block using em-dashes, which is efficient but slightly harder to scan than a split structure would be.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the tricky semantics (idempotency, reopening, dependency edges) that an agent could not infer elsewhere. The main residual gap is the unexplained `source` parameter and any note on return shape or failure modes.

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 only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does for dep (blocking dependency taskId), parentTask (hierarchical), sourceRef+title (idempotency key), and assignee (reassignment on reopen). It leaves `source` and `podId` unexplained, and priority only has schema-level documentation, so one non-obvious parameter remains 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?

States a specific verb and resource — "Create a task in the pod task board" — which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like commonly_get_tasks, commonly_update_task, and commonly_patch_task. There is no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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?

Gives clear situational guidance: use sourceRef+title as an idempotency key when re-sends may occur, and note that the same sourceRef with a different title creates a separate task. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives (e.g., use commonly_update_task to modify an existing task), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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