Add a new pending task to the swarm task board so AI agents can claim and coordinate parallel work without duplicate effort.
Create a new task in pending state on the swarm task board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Short, actionable task title. | |
| metadata | No | Optional metadata dictionary for task context. | |
| priority | No | Task priority (higher number = higher priority). Default is 1. | |
| description | No | Full task details and instructions. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the new task starts in 'pending' state, but says nothing about permissions, whether duplicate titles are allowed, what identifier is returned for later claim/complete calls, or whether the task is immediately visible to other agents.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the resulting state with no filler. Nothing is wasted or back-loaded.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover the safety/mutation profile and at least hint at the return value (e.g. a task id needed by claim_task and complete_task). Neither is present, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent wiring a workflow.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the initial state. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Specific verb (create) plus resource (task) and the resulting state (pending on the swarm task board), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like claim_task or complete_task, but the create-vs-transition distinction is inferable from the name and description.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as claim_task or list_tasks, and no prerequisites (e.g. does the task need an existing board, is auth required). Usage is only implied by the verb 'create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.