create_subgoal_task

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral transparency by detailing the atomic sequence (addSubgoal → create_task → linkTask → mark subgoal running) and the dependency constraint. This goes beyond the input 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence sets purpose and atomicity, the second explains dependencies. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (18 parameters, atomic operation) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation sequence and dependency condition. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., subgoal ID), which would be helpful.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter details but provides overall context for the atomic operation. It adds value but not significantly beyond the schema.

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 it creates a subgoal within a Goal Session and immediately launches an associated task. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task or accept_subgoal by highlighting the atomic combined operation and dependency handling.

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 implies when to use this tool (to create a subgoal with a task atomically) and mentions dependency requirements. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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