Crear tarea

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the assignment constraint, but omits behavioral details such as success response, default task status, error conditions (e.g., invalid token, nonexistent user), or side effects. It partially meets expectations but leaves 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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and immediately states the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the action and the authorization nuance.

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 create operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and authorization but lacks details on response format, error handling, and the optional description parameter. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond 'assigns to user', failing to compensate for undocumented parameters like title and description. The parameter 'token' is only described in the schema, not in the description.

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 creates a new task and assigns it to an existing user. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_user, delete_task, etc. The action and resource are explicit.

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 provides important usage context by specifying authorization rules: admin can assign to any user, member only to themselves or another member. This guides when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_tasks or update_task_status.

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