Create a task

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a key behavioral trait: creating a task here does not execute it; Leapd does. This adds valuable context about side effects and the division of labor, especially with openWorldHint=true.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter create tool with good annotations and sibling context, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's scope (creation only) and the execution handoff, though it doesn't mention return values or what happens after creation.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (title and details), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and parameters are straightforward.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Add work to the plan' and gives concrete examples (a page to build, research, a fix). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like run_task by stating the task is executed by Leapd, not this MCP server.

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 clear context: use this tool when you want to add work to the plan. It implicitly differentiates from run_task by noting that execution happens elsewhere, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use run_task for execution'.

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