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 burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, whether tasks are persistent, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 description is extremely concise at just 5 words ('Create a new task for coordination'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (creating tasks) with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what format the task takes, whether there are side effects, or how this integrates with the coordination context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters with their types, descriptions, enums, and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new task') and the resource ('for coordination'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_tasks' or other task-related operations that might exist in the future, though among current siblings it's clearly the only task creation tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other task management approaches. With sibling tools like 'get_tasks' and 'send_message' available, some context about coordination versus communication would be helpful.

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