task.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the modifier 'manually' but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, return values, or error behavior. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple create operation, and no sentence wastes space.

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?

Despite the rich schema, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, side effects, or usage context beyond 'manual creation'. With 8 parameters and sibling tools, the description is not complete enough to fully guide an agent.

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% with all 8 parameters documented, including descriptions for file, title, category, severity, lines, etc. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 'Creates a new Task manually' uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('Task'), with the modifier 'manually' distinguishing it from sibling tools like task.from_review. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 word 'manually' implies usage when creating a task by hand rather than automatically from a review, which is a useful hint given sibling task.from_review. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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