create_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does it well: two-pass insert-then-wire processing, cycle rejection semantics (returns the first cycle's task, no rollback, partial state persists, re-run via unique external_keys), unconditional board sync, and Slack defaulting to false to avoid channel flooding. Auth/permission constraints and rate limits are the only undisclosed behaviors.

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-loads purpose, then spends every remaining clause on behavior (dependency resolution, failure semantics, side effects). It is a long single paragraph where a bulleted breakdown of the two passes and side effects would scan better, but there is essentially no 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?

Covers mutation semantics, partial-failure behavior, and side effects thoroughly despite having no annotations or output schema. The main gap is the success return shape (only the cycle-error return is described) and the unexplained as_agent parameter; return values needn't be spelled out only when an output schema exists, which it does not.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema is bare ('Tasks' is just type array), so the description must compensate — and it does for the critical parts, documenting item-level 'depends_on_ids', 'depends_on_external_keys' and the NotifySlack default. However 'as_agent' is never explained and PlanId is only implied by 'a single plan', leaving two of four parameters undecoded.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Bulk task creation') plus the concrete context ('orchestrator bootstrap, e.g. Phase 0 of an audit') and scope ('a list of tasks on a single plan'). The 'bulk/on a single plan' framing cleanly separates it from the sibling create_task without needing a schema lookup.

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 when-to-use context (batch bootstrap) and notable usage guidance: idempotent re-runs after a cycle rejection, and opting into Slack only when every task should be announced. It does not explicitly name create_task as the alternative for single-task creation, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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