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 only says 'create a task in a project' without mentioning side effects, required fields, permissions, or return behavior. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward create operation, though it sacrifices usage guidance for brevity.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not explain what happens upon creation, how to structure required inputs, or what to expect in response. The rich schema compensates for parameter details but not for overall workflow context.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. It does not clarify parameter formats, defaults, or relationships beyond the existing field descriptions.

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 'Créer une tâche dans un projet' clearly states the action (create) and resource (task) with a scoping detail (in a project). It distinguishes the tool from other create tools like create_agenda_event or create_ticket, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as create_agenda_event or list_tasks. It neither states prerequisites, typical scenarios, nor exclusions. Users must infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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