workiva_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond the basic action by disclosing that the v2026 API rejects `name` and requires `title`, that assignees must be objects `{id, type:'USER'}`, and that the tool maps flat args accordingly, including a readback-verified probe. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the API constraint disclosure is highly valuable.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a parameter block, and a concise API note. The note is slightly redundant with the Args entry for `name` but adds version and verification context, so no content feels wasted. It is appropriately sized for a six-parameter tool.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential creation semantics, parameter transformations, and API constraints. It does not explain workflow interplay (e.g., how creation relates to submit/approve), but for a create operation with complete parameter docs and an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 0%, yet the description's Args list gives meaningful semantics for all six parameters: name (mapped to title), assignee (wrapped as object), approver (wrapped as participant), due_date (ISO string), file (ID), and description. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions and adds operational detail.

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 opens with 'Create a new task', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It differentiates from sibling task tools (get_task, update_task, submit_task, etc.) by focusing on creation, and the Args/Note sections reinforce that this creates a task with the specified properties.

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 indicates usage by saying 'Create a new task' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_task, submit_task, approve_task, or delete_task. There are no 'use when' or 'use instead' statements, relying on the agent to infer from the name and the presence of sibling tools.

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