runrunit_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 disclosure burden. It does this well by revealing non-obvious behaviors: default assignment to the caller, the fixed default board/column, and the description append semantics ('appended to any existing text, never replacing it outright'). It stops short of covering failure modes or permission requirements, but the key behavioral quirks an agent would trip on are disclosed.

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 key facts are front-loaded in the opening sentence (action, defaults, assignee), followed by requirements and optionals. It is reasonably compact, though the grammar is awkward ('assignee from who is call the tool') and the description-append clause partially duplicates the schema's own description text.

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 12-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials — defaults, required params, key optionals — but leaves gaps. It doesn't hint at the return value (an agent will likely need the created task ID for subsequent calls like runrunit_get_task), and it doesn't clarify whether parameters like board_name/board_stage_name override the stated defaults.

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%, placing the baseline at 3. The description adds value beyond the schema with a concrete title format convention ('[project_name] - task_name') and by flagging which optional parameters matter most (description, project_id, assignments, desired_date). The trailing 'etc.' is vague, but the meaningful additions justify a step above baseline.

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 ('Create'), a concrete resource ('task on Runrun.it'), and precise default behavior: board Ongoing (ID: 96356), column Task, assignee = the caller. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like runrunit_update_task, runrunit_delete_task, and runrunit_move_task_stage.

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 invocation context — default board, column, assignee, and which parameters are required vs optional — so an agent knows how to call it. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., runrunit_update_task for modifications, runrunit_move_task_stage for stage changes) or when NOT to use it. Usage is implied by the name and defaults rather than spelled out.

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