asana_create_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds context like "workspace inferred" and "dates auto-wrapped," but these largely echo the schema descriptions rather than revealing new behavioral traits beyond what structured fields already provide. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second clarifies the key projects-vs-default decision, and the third lists supported fields. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the essential usage decision (projects vs default workspace) and lists supported parameters, which is adequate for a create operation. However, since there is no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created task object), and it omits any error/edge-case context. Given the 11-parameter richness, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 each parameter already has an explanatory description. The description mentions supported features (assignee, notes, dates, etc.) but adds no new semantic information beyond what the input schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies 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 "Create a general task" with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like asana_create_subtask and asana_create_project. It also clarifies the key scoping decision between providing projects or using the workspace default, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context on how to choose between specifying projects (workspace inferred) or letting the task land in the workspace default. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative tools like asana_create_subtask, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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