Create a subtask under a parent task, inheriting the parent’s status unless you specify another status, priority, or description.
Create a subtask linked to a parent. Status inherits from parent unless specified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Subtask title | |
| status | No | Column slug (defaults to parent status) | |
| priority | No | Task priority | |
| description | No | Subtask description | |
| parentTaskId | Yes | Parent task ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key inheritance behavior ('Status inherits from parent unless specified'), which is useful, but it omits other behavioral context such as expected response, permission requirements, or side effects beyond creation.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and relationship. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.
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 low-complexity create tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description is nearly complete. It clarifies the parent-child relationship and the status inheritance nuance. It could be more explicit about how this differs from create_task, but the core usage context is adequately covered.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents; the inheritance behavior is also reflected in the status property description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('subtask') and a distinguishing relational constraint ('linked to a parent'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_task, which could otherwise be ambiguous.
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 when to use the tool: when creating a subtask rather than a standalone task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.