Batch Create Tasks

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: each item is created independently, a bad item doesn't fail the others, and a structured per-item success/failure result is returned. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies partial failure behavior, which is crucial for a batch operation.

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 three sentences, each adding value: the core functionality, the independent failure behavior, and the return format. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no redundant phrases.

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 complexity of a batch operation with nested items, the description covers the key aspects: batch size, per-item independence, and result structure. It mentions the absence of native bulk-create capability, which helps explain why this tool exists. It lacks explicit mention of the required 'project' parameter, but with the schema and annotations, the overall context is sufficiently complete.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the 'user_story' parameter's role ('each under its own parent user story') and the batch limit. However, it does not explain other parameters like project, subject, status, or assigned_to, leaving the schema names to carry the meaning. Partial compensation but not complete.

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 the tool's function: 'Create up to 20 tasks in one call, each under its own parent user story.' It uses the specific verb 'create' with the resource 'tasks', and the batch scope is explicit. It also distinguishes itself from the native Taiga bulk-create, which cannot carry per-item fields, making it unique among sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool: when creating multiple tasks with individual fields, and explicitly contrasts it with the native Taiga bulk-create. However, it does not explicitly mention using task_create for single-task creation, missing a clear alternative. The context is clear but exclusions are not fully spelled out.

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