create_task

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

Annotations establish that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the operation persists and redacts the objective, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'bounded' means in practice, whether tasks can be overwritten, or what side effects exist beyond persistence.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The phrasing is dense and slightly jargon-heavy, but it communicates the core action and a notable behavioral detail efficiently.

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?

The tool is low-complexity, all parameters are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. Still, the description leaves some meaning implicit, especially 'bounded task' and the exact redaction behavior, so an agent must infer parts of the contract.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the redaction nuance for the objective and does not provide additional parameter-level guidance.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('a bounded task'), and adds useful nuance about persisting a redacted objective. It is distinct at a glance from the read/list/verification sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a contrast.

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 implies use when a new task object should be created, but it provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance and gives no exclusions. The sibling tools are discoverable by name, but the description itself does not help an agent choose between them.

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