create_task

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: 'This executes code on managed infrastructure' warns of consequential side effects, and the emphasis that JSON-encoded strings must stay strings heads off a common serialization failure. It does not cover permissions or concurrency limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter placement rules, a safety warning, and the endpoint. It is compact and mostly waste-free, though 'environment and arguments are JSON-encoded strings' and 'JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings' partially restate each other.

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 a nested body with ~14 properties at 0% schema coverage, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk traps but leaves most body fields (secret, message, playbook, version, inventory_id, build_task_id) entirely undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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% on a deeply nested body, but the description supplies genuinely useful placement rules: Ansible/Terraform switches go under body.params, environment and arguments are JSON-encoded strings. It still says nothing about template_id being the sole required body field or what limit, secret, playbook, inventory_id or version mean.

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 uses a concrete verb+resource ('Start an automation task') and even gives the underlying REST route (POST /project/{project_id}/tasks), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby siblings such as run_workflow or create_schedule, leaving that differentiation to the name alone.

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 run_workflow or wait_for_task, no prerequisites (e.g., a template must exist and template_id is required), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'Start'.

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