create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that sub_type_id defaults to 'Report Bug' (27) and that any unspecified field gets the TaskLogger default. This goes beyond the obvious 'create' action and gives agents needed insight into default behavior. It doesn't mention authentication or return value, but for a create operation, the safety profile is clear.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains required fields and default behavior. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential invocation requirements (required fields, defaults) but doesn't describe the return value or any prerequisite like authentication. However, these may be inferred from the action type. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, giving baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explicitly listing the four required fields and explaining the semantic of omitted optional fields (they get defaults). It also clarifies the specific default for sub_type_id. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 and specifically states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new task.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_task and delete_task by focusing on creation. It also adds specific details about required fields and the default sub_type_id, which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage by indicating which fields are required and which can be omitted to use defaults. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, but the tool name and description make it obvious this is the creation tool. The guidance about defaults provides useful context for when to omit optional parameters.

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