create_taskCreate a new Claude Code task in a project, assigning the next ID and open status for handoff from planning chat to code agent.
Planner: create a new task for Claude Code in a project. Gets the next ID (P001, P002, ...) and status open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Full task description in Markdown. | |
| title | Yes | Short task title. | |
| project | Yes | Project slug: lowercase letters, digits and hyphens (e.g. my-app). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful side effects: ID auto-assignment (P001, P002, ...) and the task starting in 'open' status. However, it says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, or failure behavior for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence is slightly telegraphic ('Gets the next ID ... and status open') but every clause conveys real information about the tool's side effects.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior; it partially does by explaining ID and status assignment. It omits error/duplicate cases and what the caller receives back, leaving clear gaps for a write operation.
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 project, title, and body are all documented in the schema (including the slug pattern and Markdown format). The description adds only the loose hint that the task lives 'in a project', which is baseline-appropriate but not additive.
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 and resource ('create a new task') and scopes it to a project within the Planner/Claude Code domain. The verb alone distinguishes it from siblings get_next_task, list_tasks, and the report tools, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as list_tasks for inspection or get_next_task for retrieval. The agent is left to infer that 'create' means 'use this one when adding a task.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.