fr_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 reveals some behavioral traits: it mentions resolution of issue_type_name and user to IDs via API calls, and notes that additional_fields are passed through with core fields protected from override. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the creation response looks like.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet points efficiently organize parameter details without redundancy. However, the final bullet about additional_fields is slightly verbose and could be tightened.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description does well: it explains parameter semantics thoroughly, mentions internal resolution behaviors, and notes field protection. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. It could improve by adding more behavioral context like auth or error handling.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the semantics of key parameters: due_date format (ISO 8601), issue_type_name resolution, user resolution logic, and additional_fields behavior (pass-through with core field protection). It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, covering most parameters effectively.

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 resource ('under a Freshrelease project'), which provides specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fr_create_project or fr_get_all_tasks, though the purpose is reasonably distinct by context.

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 like fr_create_project or fr_get_all_tasks. It mentions some internal resolution logic (e.g., for issue_type_name and user), but doesn't offer explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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