amulen_create_task

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description does add real behavior: estado falls back to the board's first column, dates must be YYYY-MM-DD, and user_ids are validated against active membership. It still omits failure behavior and whether creation triggers notifications or side effects on the board.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the Markdown/date/default/membership facts are each stated once. Minor cost from mixed Spanish/English tokens and a parenthesis around the formato enum that reads like schema duplication.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers only the formatting and membership subset. An agent still lacks guidance on scoring, projected hours, and how project_slug and board_slug must relate. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain several of the 11 parameters: descripcion's Markdown default and formato enum, the date format for the fecha fields, the estado default, and the membership constraint on user_ids. It leaves puntuacion, horas_proyectadas, and the project_slug/board_slug pairing unexplained, so it does not fully compensate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a task") that is immediately distinguishable from amulen_update_task or amulen_list_tasks. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but the create intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives one concrete precondition — user_ids must be active project members, with a pointer to amulen_list_members — which is genuine when-to-use guidance for a sub-case. It says nothing about when to create vs. update, or about required project/board existence, leaving the main usage decision implicit.

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