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. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'a task you create here shows up on the user's board immediately, which is the point.' This adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly mention potential conflicts, permissions, or reversibility, relying on the schema's expected_version description for conflict behavior. Still, the immediate-visibility disclosure is valuable.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters) and the presence of a detailed schema (100% coverage) and output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It communicates the primary purpose, immediate effect, and usage distinction. It doesn't elaborate on return values or all params, but the schema covers those. The only minor gap is not mentioning the conflict behavior directly, though the schema references it. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only references `tasks` in create_task_board, not this tool's own parameters. Thus, the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no extra value here.

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 adds a task to an existing board, using the specific verb 'Add' and resource. It distinguishes itself from create_task_board by noting this tool is for mid-session work on an existing board, while create_task_board seeds known work. This is a specific, non-tautological 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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('use this for what comes up mid-session') and when to prefer an alternative ('Prefer seeding known work through create_task_board's `tasks` argument'). This is clear guidance on usage versus alternatives, going beyond mere context.

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