hb_state_task_create

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the task is persisted, whether it is dispatchable, whether agent_id is required for provenance, or what side effects creation has. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical 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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — the brevity comes at the cost of all useful content.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits provenance semantics for agent_id, priority defaults, and any indication of the creation result. An agent could not call this confidently without reading the schema alone.

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 four parameters (title, agent_id, priority, description) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or relationship detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Create a new task" essentially restates the tool name hb_state_task_create with no added specificity. It gives a verb and resource but does nothing to distinguish the task-creation semantics from siblings like hb_state_task_list or hb_state_task_update, and it never explains what a "task" is in this system.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisites, no mention of the sibling hb_state_task_update or hb_state_dispatch as alternatives, and no note on when creating a task is appropriate versus dispatching one. The agent gets no routing help.

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