Create task

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the operation returns 'the created task with its generated id and number,' which gives useful output context. It does not describe side effects or auth needs, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or repetition. Every sentence contributes meaning: one states what it does and its requirements, the other states the return value.

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?

With 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the necessary high-level context: purpose, required inputs, and return shape. The schema handles all parameter details. It could mention optional capabilities (e.g., statuses/priorities) but those are covered thoroughly in the input schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter receiving a detailed comment. The tool description mentions only the required board_slug and title, which are already documented in the schema. Thus the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new task on a board.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task, delete_task, and get_task. It also names the required inputs (board slug and title), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 states prerequisite inputs ('Requires the board slug and a title') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like update_task for existing tasks. This is clear context without exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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