gorelo_create_project_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation/safety profile. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that – no mention of required section nesting, side effects, permissions, or what a successful creation returns, all of which would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

A single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. It is appropriately short, though terse given the rich nested body the tool actually accepts.

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 a nested, multi-field body and no output schema, the description relies heavily on the schema (which is complete) and annotations for safety. The main gaps – when to use it and behavioral/return context – are only partially covered.

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 all parameters (Title, SectionId, StatusId, PriorityId, etc.) are fully documented in the nested schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('a task on a project's board'), which lets an agent distinguish this from sibling operations like create_project, create_ticket, or create_project_section. It's clear but doesn't explicitly route against the near-neighbor create_ticket.

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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With many create_* siblings (create_ticket, create_project_section, create_project_task_approval), nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus those.

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