Create Kanban task

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'writing redacted receipts,' which is useful behavioral context not in annotations. However, it doesn't mention idempotency behavior (though the schema describes the idempotency_key param), authentication requirements, or side effects like worker dispatch. The 'redacted receipts' mention is a genuine addition but sparse.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates the key parameters compactly. It's not padded with fluff or redundant claims. Minor deduction for not being fully self-contained (relies on reader parsing the parameter list correctly).

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description's job is largely about orientation. For a 13-parameter creation tool, it adequately overviews the input surface. The missing usage guidance and sparse behavioral disclosure slightly reduce completeness, but the rich schema and output schema compensate substantially.

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 fully documents all 13 parameters. The description lists the key fields (title, body, assignee, priority, parents, triage flag, idempotency key, workspace options) but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. This is the baseline 3 since the schema carries the full load.

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 clearly states it's a 'Typed POST /api/plugins/kanban/tasks wrapper that creates a Kanban task' with a specific verb (creates) and resource (Kanban task), and lists a comprehensive set of fields it handles. It distinguishes from siblings like hermes_kanban_task_update by indicating creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling creation tools (liked hermes_kanban_link_create), so it's slightly below a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hermes_kanban_task_update or hermes_kanban_task_specify. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., what's needed to create a task), whether this is the primary entry point for task creation, or when a sibling might be more appropriate. The write action is implied but no contextual direction is given.

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