create_scrum_task

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the baseline is lower. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is useful environmental context, but it does not disclose return behavior, side effects beyond creation, or what happens without required fields. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence, tightly packed with essential information: action, resource, parent relationship, and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (3 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description is mostly adequate but leaves some gaps. It does not clarify why story_sys_id is optional despite calling the task a sub-task of a story, nor does it mention what the tool returns or how the WRITE_ENABLED flag affects execution. A bit more context would improve completeness.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to; baseline 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 action ('Create') and the specific resource ('scrum task') with a clarifying parenthetical that it is a sub-task of a story. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_story and update_scrum_task.

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 implies usage through its clear create intent but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update_scrum_task for modifications) or when not to use it. The WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite is a useful condition but does not substitute for explicit usage guidance.

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