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 reveals a notable behavior: the response automatically includes nextSteps workflow guidance and insists the agent follow it to ensure complete metadata. This is a critical behavioral trait beyond the schema. It could also mention validation or failure modes, but the key non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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 and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a highlighted warning (⚠️) about the nextSteps field. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb, and the warning is important enough to warrant emphasis. 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, mentions the key fields, and importantly describes the output behavior (nextSteps guidance) which is critical for the agent to use effectively. The schema fully covers inputs, and the description adds the key output context. Some details like error handling or exact return format are missing, but given moderate complexity, this is sufficient.

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 8 parameters. The description lists some parameter names (status, dependencies, assignee, priority, tags) but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions. For example, status enum values are repeated from schema, but no additional format, constraints, or cross-field dependencies are explained. 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 opens with 'Creates a new task' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It lists key fields (title, description, status, dependencies, assignee, priority, tags) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task and delete_task by indicating creation rather than modification or deletion.

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 clearly implies use for creating new tasks, which separates it from update/delete siblings. It also provides a strong usage guideline to always follow the nextSteps field for post-creation analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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