Yougile Create Task

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Create'. It does not disclose the write nature, the confirmation flow for client-facing projects, or the need to set the confirm parameter after a confirmation_required response. There is no contradiction with annotations, but meaningful safety-relevant behavior is left only to the schema.

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 dense sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. It is compact, though the phrasing 'using names: board and column' is slightly awkward and it sacrifices some completeness by not mentioning the required title.

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?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is too thin. It does not state the required title, the confirmation precondition, or what a successful creation returns. The input schema carries most of the burden, but the description alone leaves the tool's behavior and preconditions insufficiently predictable.

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 coverage is high at 77%, with existing descriptions for date formats, assignee forms, and column defaults, so the description adds little beyond summarizing the core fields. It usefully mentions assignees by name/email and deadline as a date, but it omits the only required parameter (title) and the important confirm flag. This is a reasonable baseline for a schema-heavy tool.

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 opens with 'Create a task', a clear verb and resource, and enumerates the main fields (board, column, assignees, deadline, planned hours, checklist), which is enough to separate it from update/move/find siblings. It omits the required title field and the phrasing 'using names: board and column' is awkward, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that this is for new tasks as opposed to yougile_update_task or yougile_move_task, nor any prerequisites such as needing a board or project. The sibling list exists, but the description does not reference any exclusions or selection criteria.

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