vikunja_task_crud

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it manages tasks, but does not explain what each operation does, required permissions, side effects, or constraints (e.g., whether deletion is irreversible, or prerequisites like authentication).

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 short, which could be seen as concise, but it omits critical details needed for usage. It is under-specified rather than efficiently documented.

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 complexity of 20 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. An agent cannot determine required parameters per operation, expected outputs, or error conditions.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about the 20 parameters. The description merely lists operations but does not specify which parameters apply to which operation, their formats, or purpose. This severely hinders correct tool invocation.

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 lists the operations (create, get, update, delete, list) and identifies the resource as 'individual tasks'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vikunja_tasks or vikunja_task_assignees, which also deal with tasks. The purpose is clear but not distinct enough contextually.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, the sibling tool 'vikunja_task_assignees' might be better for managing assignees, but there is no mention of when to choose one over the other.

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