backlog.create_taskCreate a task in a backlog project by specifying project ID and title. Optionally include status, priority, description, and other fields to manage task details.
Creates a task through the running backlog API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| source | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| external_ref | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'creates a task.' It does not mention side effects, required fields, validation rules, idempotency behavior despite the idempotency_key parameter, or what happens on success or failure.
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 short and the core action is front-loaded, but the phrase 'through the running backlog API' is filler that adds little value. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, this one-line description is severely incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, return values, behavior notes, and any context about how to use the task creation workflow. An agent must rely almost entirely on the schema and tool name.
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 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain that project_id and title are required, what status or priority enums mean, or how external_ref and idempotency_key should be used. The agent receives no parameter-level help.
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: 'Creates a task.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_task, delete_task, and list_tasks at a high level. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation and does not indicate what kind of task or context, relying on the name and schema.
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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_from_context, update_task, or claim_task. The description only restates the create action and does not mention prerequisites like an existing project or when to prefer another sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.