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 behavioral disclosure. It discloses two meaningful traits: the task is created in the 'configured project', implying a prerequisite of project configuration, and the name must not include a state prefix like [TODO]/[DONE]. However, it does not mention side effects, return values, or error conditions, which leaves some transparency gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place, providing purpose and a key constraint without any fluff.

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 tool is simple (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects). The description, combined with the schema, gives enough context for correct invocation: what the tool does, the required parameter, and a naming rule. The reference to 'configured project' is a minor ambiguity, but overall the description is complete for this level of complexity.

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 only 33%, with 'nombre' having a schema description. The tool description adds value by restating the no-prefix rule for 'nombre'. The other parameters ('color', 'comentario') are self-explanatory from their names but lack explicit descriptions, so the description only partially compensates for the low 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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Crea una tarea en el proyecto configurado' (Creates a task in the configured project). It also adds a specific constraint about the name not carrying a state prefix, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mark_task_done or start_task.

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 the use case is creating a new task, which is distinct from start_task, mark_task_done, and reopen_task. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple create operation.

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