task_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions key behaviors: tasks are asynchronous, have a TTL, and can optionally trigger webhook notifications on status changes. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, return values, or side effects beyond the TTL and webhook behavior. Some transparency is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then summarize key features. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool creates a task but there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., task ID, status URL). It also lacks guidance on permissions, error conditions, or lifecycle behavior beyond the TTL. For a creation tool with moderate parameter complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 five parameters. The description adds marginal value by highlighting TTL and webhook features, which map to existing parameters, but it does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create an async task for tracking long-running operations.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like task_status, but the wording is specific enough.

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 a usage context: 'for tracking long-running operations,' indicating when the tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like task_status or webhook_register. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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