create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a write operation ('Create') but does not state whether authentication is required, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on validation failure, or what the return value looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value; there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are already documented in the schema.

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 a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is thin. It does not mention that project_id and title are required (though the schema does), nor does it note authentication needs, return behavior, or error handling. An agent has enough to guess the operation but not enough to anticipate important runtime outcomes.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description. The description adds only marginal context by naming 'assigned, dated and prioritised', which maps to assignee_email, due_date/start_date, and priority, but it does not clarify format, defaults, or relationships beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('task'), and a location ('in a project'), and it hints at optional attributes ('assigned, dated and prioritised'). This clearly differentiates it from the many get_* siblings and from update_task, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. It is clear and unambiguous about the core operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_subtask or update_task. While the purpose is obvious, the description does not mention any preconditions (e.g., project existence, authentication) or situations where a sibling would be more appropriate. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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