create_scrum_task

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like validation failure handling, auto-numbering, or side effects (openWorldHint=true suggests potential side effects). The contribution is moderate.

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 sentence of 13 words, efficiently stating the purpose and a key requirement. It is front-loaded and free of any extraneous information, 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 simple create tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values, behavior on missing optional parameters, or potential side effects. Given the tool's simplicity and the richness of sibling tool names, the description could provide more context but does not miss critical information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (assigned_to, story_sys_id, short_description). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a scrum task, specifying it is a sub-task of a story. This distinguishes it from other create tools like create_story or update_scrum_task. The verb "create" and resource "scrum task" are specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a requirement (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and identifies the parent-child relationship (sub-task of a story), giving context for when to use. It implies usage for creating a task under a story, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The requirement adds clear guideline.

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