Add a new task to a project task list by specifying a title, priority, and optional description. Use it to capture work items with clear urgency levels.
Create a new project task with a title, optional description, and priority. Use this when the user wants to add work to the project task list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| priority | Yes | Task priority | |
| description | No | Optional detailed description of the task |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the create action and does not mention side effects, return values, validation failures, permissions, or whether the task is immediately visible. This is a meaningful gap 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, with the core action and target resource front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.
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 simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable: clear purpose, clear trigger, and clear parameter hints. However, it omits output/return behavior and side-effect details, so it does not fully stand alone without annotations or an output schema.
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?
The input schema documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond noting that the description parameter is optional, which is already visible in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new project task.' It also names the key fields (title, optional description, priority), and the sibling tools list_tasks and update_task make the create-vs-manage distinction unmistakable.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants to add work to the project task list.' It does not spell out exclusions, but the sibling names make the division of responsibility clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.