create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention key traits: whether the tool returns the created task ID, if it validates UUIDs in the 'depends' array, or what happens if the specified project doesn't exist. It does not disclose mutation side effects beyond the implied creation.

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 extremely brief (four words), avoiding verbosity. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It is front-loaded but fails to maximize value per sentence.

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 tool with 9 parameters including complex date fields and dependency arrays, and no output schema provided, the description is inadequate. It omits what the tool returns upon success (e.g., task ID), error handling behavior, and any Taskwarrior-specific context that would aid an agent in invocation.

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%, with all 9 parameters adequately documented in the schema itself. The description adds no supplementary parameter semantics (e.g., syntax examples, validation rules), but the baseline score of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new task' essentially restates the tool name (create_task), constituting a tautology. While it identifies the verb and resource, it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like update_task or annotate_task, and does not clarify the scope or nature of the task being created.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task, or prerequisites like ensuring dependencies exist. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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