Base Wework Create Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state that this is a create (write) operation, any authentication requirements (access_token appears in schema but is not mentioned), error behaviors, or rate limits. It does confirm it supports assignment and custom fields, but omits important context like whether it modifies existing data or requires specific permissions.

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 Vietnamese sentence, concise. It front-loads the main action. However, for an agent that may not know Vietnamese, the description is not in English (the tool name is English but description is Vietnamese), which could reduce accessibility. It is relatively short but misses critical details.

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?

This tool has 15 parameters and the description covers only a few features. No output schema details are mentioned, and the description doesn't specify defaults for fields like status or urgentholo, when to set them, or how to pass nested structures like custom_fields. Given the complexity and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'deadline, followers, tags, urgent, custom fields' which maps loosely to parameters like tags, followers, urgent, custom_fields, but the description is generic and doesn't explain format (e.g., how deadline is formatted as string, how custom_fields should be structured as an object, or the meaning of the integer 'status' or 'urgent' values). Parameters like username and access_token are entirely unexplained. The description adds some meaning but far below what is needed given zero schema coverage.

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 states a clear purpose: creating a new task on Base Wework and assigning it to devs. It lists supported features (deadline, followers, tags, urgent, custom fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edit_task or mark_task_done, though the verb 'create' distinguishes it clearly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project_id or tasklist_id), how to find them (via list_projects or list_tasks_by_project), or when to prefer edit_task. Siblings like list_tasks_by_project are not referenced.

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