manus_task_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is asynchronous and suggests polling or waiting, but does not detail permissions, side effects, or response format. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two concise sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every word adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers core creation details but omits the return format (e.g., task ID). It mentions asynchronous behavior but not how to obtain the initial response. Adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists supported content parts, connectors, skills, project scoping, and interactive mode, offering partial meaning. However, it does not explain individual parameters like locale, agent_profile, share_visibility, etc.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new Manus task' and lists supported features (text/file/voice, connectors, skills, project scoping, interactive mode). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like manus_task_send_message or manus_task_wait.

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 directs users to poll manus_task_list_messages or use manus_task_wait for completion, providing clear usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative creation methods.

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