create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns the new task and allocates its id automatically, which is valuable because there is no output schema. However, it does not mention permissions, validation behavior, defaults for omitted fields, or other side effects of creating a task.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return/id behavior is stated 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?

The schema fully documents the 8 parameters, and the description partially compensates for the missing output schema by saying the new task is returned with an automatically allocated id. It remains incomplete on default field behavior, creation side effects, and permissions, which matters for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 8 parameters are already well documented, including the enum for priority and accepted status aliases. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a task." This clearly differentiates the core operation from siblings like edit_task, list_tasks, get_task, and change_task_status. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent creation or mutation tools, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The operation is implied by the name, but there is no explicit usage context.

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