Creates an Asana task within a specified project to manage e-commerce operations, such as fulfillment, by setting the task name, notes, due date, and assignee.
Create an Asana task in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| dueOn | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| assigneeId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a task is created, implying mutation, but gives no information about side effects, required permissions, duplicate behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and immediately readable.
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 no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and five parameters, this one-sentence description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool. It omits parameter meaning, return value expectations, and guidance on selecting this tool over related Asana tools.
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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It only adds context for projectId via 'in a project' and leaves name, dueOn, notes, and assigneeId semantically underspecified. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not meaningfully explain them.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Create an Asana task in a project.' It is specific enough to distinguish creation from sibling read/update tools like asana_get_tasks and asana_update_task_status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over asana_update_task_status or asana_get_tasks, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.