create_subtask

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral nuance about status defaulting (project default, not parent's), but says nothing about what happens to inherited fields, auth requirements, or what is returned on success.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the one non-obvious default behavior called out immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and a clear annotation profile, the description covers purpose and the key defaulting nuance. It omits any mention of the return value (e.g., the new subtask ID), which would be useful since no output schema exists, but otherwise it is sufficient to call correctly.

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 12 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's note that the status default is the project's status rather than the parent's adds meaning beyond the schema, but only for one of twelve parameters. Baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a subtask') plus the parent relationship, which separates it from the generic create_task sibling. It does not explicitly name create_task as the alternative, but 'under a parent task' is enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 one real usage rule — set status_slug for the initial status and be aware it defaults to the project's status, not the parent's. However, there is no guidance on when to use create_subtask versus create_task, nor any prerequisite or permission context.

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