create_project_task

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

Beyond the annotations, which already indicate this is a write operation, the description adds important behavioral detail: creating the task never executes it and requires separate user approval. This helps the agent understand the proposal workflow and avoid assuming the task is immediately actionable.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the essential purpose and the critical approval caveat with no filler. The key behavioral constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence, making the tool's intent immediately clear.

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?

The description is complete for a creation tool: it states what is created, the proposal nature, and the approval requirement. An output schema exists, so return value details do not need to be in the description, and the parameter schema fully covers input semantics.

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 in the input schema. The description does not add field-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema already provides concise descriptions for all seven parameters.

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 verb ('Save') and resource ('follow-up TODO as proposed'), and it clarifies the key semantic distinction that creating a proposed task is not the same as executing it. This clearly separates create_project_task from execution-oriented tools and from list_project_tasks.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to save a follow-up TODO as a proposal, and it explicitly flags that the task will not be executed until a user approves it. It does not name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the core usage context is unambiguous.

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