tasks_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new task' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't mention required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, there's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration—every word directly contributes to stating the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with complex nested parameters (2 top-level, 1 required), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what parameters mean, or behavioral aspects like error handling, making it incomplete for effective use.

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%, meaning parameter documentation relies entirely on the description. The description mentions no parameters at all, despite the schema having 2 top-level parameters ('properties' and 'associations') with complex nested structures. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 'Create a new task' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('task'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_create' or other creation tools in the server, nor does it specify what kind of task system this is for (e.g., CRM tasks).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_batch_create' for multiple tasks or other task-related tools. The description offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios for this single-task creation tool.

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