create_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: it warns that percent_done is a fraction and unvalidated, explains start/end versus due_date semantics, and details the reopening behavior of repeat tasks, including the trap that a repeating task with no date can never be closed.

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 dense but waste-free: the opening sentence states the core purpose, and every following paragraph targets a real trap or field ambiguity. Parameter names are formatted clearly and the most important caveats come early.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behaviors and field semantics, which is enough for a correct call in most cases. It does not mention the return value of the created task or the meaning of priority, leaving minor but real gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by giving concrete semantics for the non-obvious fields: ISO datetime meanings, percent_done as a 0-1 fraction, repeat_after in seconds, and repeat_mode values. Some parameters like priority still lack semantic detail, so the compensation is not complete.

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 first sentence, 'Create a task in a project,' names a specific operation and object, so the purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as bulk_create_tasks or duplicate_task, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 about when to choose create_task over alternatives like bulk_create_tasks or update_task. The intended use is only implied by the name and the opening sentence; no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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