Create Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the destination path (_lifecycle/inbox/) and the implications for recipient claiming, but it does not state whether the creation is reversible, requires no permissions, or any side effects beyond placement. The description is decent but not exhaustive; a 3 is appropriate given the lack of mutation details like whether it overwrites existing tasks.

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 front-loaded with the core action and placement, followed by a brief context paragraph. Every sentence adds value: the spec reference, the functional equivalence, and the inbox path for claiming. It is concise and well-structured with a clear separation of primary and contextual information.

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 of a task-creation tool with 8 parameters, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the key workflow (inbox placement and claim), and the schema provides parameter details. The description doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters well, including defaults and formats. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it references the schema fields implicitly but doesn't clarify ambiguous ones like priority aliases or thread_key usage. Baseline 3 is correct since 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?

The description clearly states that the tool creates a new task and places it in the inbox or tasks folder, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from write_task by noting functional identity but naming difference, which helps differentiate among siblings. However, it could be more explicit about the primary use case versus write_task.

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 mentions that this is the canonical entry-point for task creation per spec, and functionally identical to write_task, which provides guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like claim_task or list_tasks, but the context of placement and the claim_task reference imply the workflow. Lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.

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