Create and track a new task with a required title plus optional owner, plan reference, and priority for persistent task management in Cortex Intelligent.
Create a new task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| plan_ref | No | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating tool, yet it discloses nothing: no required fields, no side effects, no persistence/linking behavior for plan_ref, no permission needs. This is a bare minimum statement with zero behavioral context.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient concision. A single four-word sentence cannot earn its place for a 4-parameter mutation tool.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves critical information entirely absent. An agent has no basis to call this tool correctly beyond guessing field 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 0% across 4 parameters (owner, title, plan_ref, priority), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. An agent cannot tell what plan_ref links to or how priority is interpreted without reading raw schema types.
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 verb and resource ('Create a new task'), but it essentially restates the tool name 'task_create' and gives no scope, distinctions, or qualifiers. It is especially ambiguous against siblings like init_task, task_list, and task_get, which an agent must be able to tell apart without opening schemas.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus init_task or task_sync_md, no prerequisites, and no conditions. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.