create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals only that a task is created, but does not state what happens on success, whether a task number is assigned, whether duplicates are permitted, whether the referenced project must exist, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action verb. It is appropriately concise, though slightly under-specified; it earns its place without fluff.

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?

With 5 parameters, 2 required, an enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the single-sentence description does not provide enough context for correct invocation. It omits details like the meaning of dependencies ('task numbers'), project existence requirements, and return behavior. The description is adequate for identifying the operation but incomplete for reliable execution.

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 every parameter is already documented structurally. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3 given the high coverage. The phrase 'in a project' hints at projectName's role, but that is already stated in 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a new task in a project'. The verb 'create' clearly distinguishes it from read operations (get_task, list_tasks) and other mutations (update_task, complete_task) among siblings. However, it is minimal and does not add scope details beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must already exist via init_project) or exclusions (e.g., use update_task for modifying existing tasks). The agent must infer usage context solely from the sibling list.

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