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. It simply says 'create' but does not disclose whether the operation is safe, requires permissions, or has side effects beyond creation. It also omits behavior around the 'tasks' array (subtask creation), validation of exact-match fields, or return values, which are critical for a write operation with 11 parameters.

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 sentence of seven words, with zero filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it is minimal, this dimension rewards brevity and the sentence earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how subtasks are handled, or any edge cases. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide broader workflow context such as typical usage or integration with other tools.

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%, with each parameter having a description, so baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. However, the schema is already rich (e.g., 'must match exactly a status in your kanban' and 'Exact match of a client record in your CRM'), so no additional compensation from the description is needed.

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 'Create a new task/deliverable in a project', which clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (task/deliverable within a project). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_project or create_client, though it does not explicitly contrast them. The phrasing 'task/deliverable' may cause slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely imperative and does not mention scenarios where this tool should be chosen over siblings like create_project or create_client. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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