Yougile Create Task

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that client copies can be created, a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose that confirmation may be required for client-facing projects (implied by the confirm parameter) or other side effects. The description adds limited transparency beyond the schema but does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The client copy instruction is a useful addendum. The only flaw is the mention of parameters not in the schema, which detracts from clarity, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't mention the confirmation flow for client-facing writes, error handling, or that client_title/client_description are not actual parameters. The reference to a non-existent sibling (yougile_client_copy) is also unhelpful. The description covers only the basic task creation scenario and misses important operational details.

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?

The description lists several parameters (board, column, assignees, deadline, planned hours, checklist) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already describes most parameters. More critically, it references client_title and client_description which are not defined in the input schema, potentially misleading the agent. This reduces the value of the description in guiding parameter usage.

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 the tool creates a task and enumerates key fields (board, column, assignees, deadline, planned hours, checklist), distinguishing it from update/move siblings. The client copy mention adds specificity for a particular scenario. The reference to client_title/client_description not present in the schema is a minor flaw but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 specific guidance for client work, instructing to pass client_title and client_description for client copies and referencing yougile_client_copy. It does not explicitly contrast with update/move tools, but the verb 'create' makes the use case clear. The guidance is adequate but could mention exclusions (e.g., when to use update instead).

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