create_asana_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The description is just a single sentence stating the action with no mention of side effects (e.g., does it notify the assignee by email?), permission requirements, account selection behavior, or what happens if required parameters are missing. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely terse (one sentence, ~7 words), which is efficient for a 'create' operation. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and important behavioral implications. This is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — the brevity doesn't include necessary operating context.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, this is a mutation tool with no annotations. The description fails to explain integration behavior (which Asana account is used, whether tasks appear in specific projects by default, assignee notification behavior). The complexity of Asana task creation with optional account/project/assignee fields warrants more than a single declarative sentence.

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 schema itself documents all 6 parameters with descriptions (title, account, due_date, project_id, description, assignee_email). The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't exceed it.

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 the action ('Create a task in Asana') with a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_commitment, create_delegation, or create_follow_up, which are similar creation tools. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from the broader sibling set, though Asana-specific context provides some distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_commitment or create_follow_up. There's no mention of context (e.g., 'use for project tasks, not meetings or follow-ups') or exclusions. The description provides no usage context whatsoever.

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