tasks_create

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. 'Create a new task' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with complex nested parameters.

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 maximally concise with just three words. While severely under-specified, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if the place is inadequate.

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 the complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to structure the complex input, what system it operates in, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description provides no information about parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one required), the agent has no guidance about what 'properties' and 'associations' mean, what fields are available, or how to structure the complex nested objects. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Create a new task' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'tasks_create'. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('task'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_create' or provide any additional context about what kind of task or in what system.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'tasks_create' versus 'tasks_batch_create', nor any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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