create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the parent story must already exist and that task creation should be followed by presenting the task list, not immediate implementation. However, it does not mention possible side effects beyond creation, failure behavior, permissions, or whether results are persisted, which a state-changing tool with no annotations could usefully state.

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 three short paragraphs with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite, workflow constraint, and bug-fix policy—each sentence adds operational value.

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 creation tool with four required parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential context: what a task is, that a story must already exist, the expected workflow, and when to prefer a task over a new story. Because an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with create_spike, but the implementation-focused definition largely covers that.

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. It indirectly clarifies story_id (parent story must exist), what_to_do (implementation work), and testable_outcome (testable outcome), but it never maps these concepts to the parameter names or explains expected formats. Title is left entirely to its self-evident name.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Task under a story.' It adds a precise definition—'a concrete unit of implementation work with a testable outcome'—which clearly distinguishes tasks from stories and spikes among the sibling tools.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('The parent story must already exist'), a workflow directive (present the task list before starting work), and a clear alternative policy for bug fixes (prefer bug-fix story for 1-2 tasks, suggest a dedicated story for 3+). This tells an agent when and how to use the tool versus creating a new story.

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