Create a development task by associating bug or todo IDs, with a required confirmation for write operations. Use this to generate tasks from S0 requirement summaries.
新建开发任务（S0 需求汇总自动生成）。对应 CLI：dev-task create。参数：title*(任务标题), bugs*(关联待办 id（逗号分隔，支持前缀）)。写操作须 confirm:true。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bugs | Yes | 关联待办 id（逗号分隔，支持前缀） | |
| title | Yes | 任务标题 | |
| confirm | No | 写操作必传 true（安全门） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation and that confirm:true is required, which is important safety-relevant behavior. However, it does not describe side effects on linked todo items, whether the operation is reversible, permissions needed, or what the response will be.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the CLI mapping, required parameters, and the confirm gate in a single efficiently structured string. 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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose, required parameters, and the confirm gate, making it minimally viable. But it lacks usage guidance and any explanation of return values or expected side effects, so an agent may still be uncertain about the full invocation context.
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 baseline is 3. The description restates title and bugs parameters and adds the confirm safety requirement, but it does not add meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. It is acceptable but not additive.
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 a specific verb and resource: 新建开发任务 (create development task). It does not read as a tautology or vague operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like wb_dev_task, wb_dev_task_stage, or wb_dev_task_item.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(S0 需求汇总自动生成)' hints at an automation context, but does not clearly state when an agent should choose this tool or when it should not. The CLI mapping is informative but not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.