Add task

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

The annotations only indicate this is a write operation in a closed world with no idempotency or destructive guarantee. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Create': it does not mention duplicate handling, conflicts such as parent versus project, required permissions, or response behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and object appear first, and the optional capabilities follow compactly. Every word 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?

This is a 16-parameter creation tool with a minimal description and no annotation support. Although an output schema exists, the description omits meaningful context such as how to associate a project or parent and which optional fields are mutually exclusive. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation in non-trivial cases.

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?

With only 38% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only groups a few into vague categories: 'subtasks, tags, dates, and a repeat rule.' It does not add meaning for project_id, parent_task_id, note, flagged, sequential, planned_date, or estimated_minutes, and it does not clarify formats or constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Create one task.' It also names the key optional capabilities (subtasks, tags, dates, and repeat rule), and the singular 'one task' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like add_items. An agent can tell what action this tool performs at a glance.

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 conditions are given for when to use add_task instead of add_items, edit_item, or create_project_from_outline, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The sibling list is present in the context, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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