create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the effect of periodicity_ms (makes the task periodic), which gives some operational insight, but it says nothing about side effects, return values, error handling, permissions, or whether calling it multiple times replaces or creates multiple tasks. This is only a partial disclosure for a mutation operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence packs all essential parameter details. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers both parameters and the core purpose, which is sufficient for a simple creation tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, there is no guidance on what a successful response looks like, what happens on failure, or whether task names are auto-generated. These gaps are non-critical but present, so it falls short of fully complete.

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%: the schema merely says task_type is a string and periodicity_ms is an integer. The description compensates fully by enumerating allowed task_type values (MAST, FAST, AUX0..AUX3, SAFE) and defining periodicity_ms semantics (>0 makes the task periodic). This is exactly the kind of parameter meaning an agent needs to call correctly.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Add a task to the project.' It also lists the specific task_type values, which immediately differentiates this from sibling create_* tools like create_variable, create_section, or create_animation_table. An agent can tell it is for adding a task without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever a task must be added to the project. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed because there is no other task-creation sibling. The context is clear enough to select it over other create_* tools.

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