create_task

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states the created status (pending), dependency semantics including cycle rejection at insert and the same-plan constraint, and the always-on board sync that makes BoardSyncWorker create a draft GitHub Projects V2 item in Backlog on first drain. It also discloses that Slack is opt-in with notify_slack defaulting to false, which is exactly the kind of side-effect detail an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and initial state, and each sentence contributes new information (dependencies, board sync, Slack). It is dense and slightly run-on in places, but nothing is 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?

Strong on dependencies and side effects for a mutation tool with no output schema, but an agent still cannot tell what most of the 11 inputs mean or what the call returns (the created task id, presumably, but unstated). With 0% schema coverage the description should have closed more of that gap.

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 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it explains only DependsOn and NotifySlack. Title, PlanId, PhaseId, Priority, Paths, as_agent, Description, ExternalKey and ReferencePointer get no semantics at all, and the casing mismatch ('depends_on' / 'notify_slack' vs DependsOn / NotifySlack) is unaddressed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource and initial state: 'Create a new task on a plan, in pending status.' That is far more precise than the name alone. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_tasks' (bulk variant), which is the one confusion an agent is likely to have.

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?

Gives clear caller context: 'Used by orchestrators that decompose larger work units into tasks at runtime, and by admin tools that import work from external sources.' It also explains downstream consumption via claim_next_task / claim_specific_task, which helps an agent reason about sequencing. It stops short of explicit exclusions or pointing at 'create_tasks' for bulk creation.

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