Create a subtask under an existing parent task by supplying the parent task ID, subtask title, and optional priority, description, or assignees.
Create a subtask under an existing task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Subtask title | |
| priority | No | Subtask priority | medium |
| description | No | Subtask description | |
| parentTaskId | Yes | Parent task UUID or systemCode (TSK-XXXXXX-XXXX) | |
| assignedToIds | No | Assignee UUIDs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a mutation occurs ('Create'), but it does not mention required permissions, whether the created subtask is returned, validation or error behavior, or any effect on the parent task. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place and clearly conveys the core operation.
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?
The schema covers all five parameters and the description clarifies the parent-child relationship, so the agent has enough to invoke the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not address what the tool returns or any operational prerequisites beyond the parent task existing.
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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because 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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('a subtask'), and a clear relationship ('under an existing task'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taskhub_task_create, which creates a top-level task, and taskhub_subproject_add, which adds a subproject.
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 phrase 'under an existing task' provides clear context: this tool should be used only when a parent task already exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5, but it gives enough contextual guidance for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.