task_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating tasks on the 'active board' but does not explain what 'active board' means, potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is too sparse for a creation 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 concise (three short sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence provides distinct value. There is no verbose or redundant language.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains only a few parameters and omits details on prerequisites, return behavior, or error handling, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%. The description adds value by explaining the title vs tasks distinction and the purpose of acceptance_criteria. However, other parameters like priority, base_branch, agent_backend, launcher, repo_id, and github_issue receive no explanation, leaving their meaning unclear.

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 action: 'Create one or more tasks on the active board.' It distinguishes between single and multiple task creation, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'For a single task, pass title directly. For multiple tasks, pass tasks as a list... Include acceptance criteria when you want downstream review to stay concrete.' This frames when to use each parameter, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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