Create task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers useful details: the server assigns the key, status/assignees/labels accept friendly values, and Goby has no issue types/sprints. This goes beyond the schema and prevents likely misconceptions. It stops short of describing the response shape, but the core side effects and constraints are clearly disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key facts are front-loaded. The first sentence identifies the action, the second delivers the most important behavioral caveats. Every clause 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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential Goby-specific context and the most error-prone input semantics. The schema documents the remaining parameters, including idempotency_key and due_at. A note about the response would have made it fully complete, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 78%, so the description must add meaning for the less-documented space. It does, by explaining that friendly values work for status, assignees, and labels, and by clarifying that priority is 1 highest to 3. This complements the schema's own descriptions and helps the agent supply valid values for the trickiest parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Goby task.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like update-task by framing it as the creation action, and clarifies that the key is server-assigned, so no client-supplied key is expected. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 it: whenever a new task should be created. It provides Goby-specific modeling guidance ('no issue types or sprints, use priority and labels') that helps an agent avoid using unsupported concepts, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like update-task or state when not to use this tool. Usage context is present but not explicit.

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