create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new task' without mentioning permissions, side effects, reversibility, validation behavior, or expected outcomes. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 consists of two succinct sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the crucial prerequisite. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 11 parameters, 7 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a two-sentence overview. It omits guidance on how to source HourlyRateID (e.g., via get_hourly_rates), what the response format is, error handling, and other lookups. This is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly, especially given the absence of structured metadata.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantics, such as parameter relationships or defaults for optional fields like IsBillable. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb-resource relationship: 'Create a new task (phase) on a project.' It also identifies the prerequisite lookup tool (search_projects), which helps distinguish it from read-only search tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other create tools like create_time_registration, though the resource is different.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to use search_projects first to obtain the ProjectID, which is a concrete prerequisite for correct invocation. It does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives for sub-tasks, but the prerequisite is a valuable usage hint.

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