task_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function and one behavioral nuance (open vs assigned). It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error conditions, permissions, or return value—critical 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?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; more structure (e.g., listing key parameters or result) would improve it without being verbose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, required fields beyond title, return value, or usage context. A user would need external documentation to use this tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description only adds context for the 'owner' parameter ('if an owner is given'), leaving title, detail, and lane undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 action 'Create a task' and distinguishes between open and assigned tasks based on owner presence. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like task_assign or task_ship, so it's clear but not fully distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that to create a task with an owner, use this, but does not mention when to use task_assign for assigning existing tasks or other task verbs.

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