Create a task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two important nontrivial behaviors: subtasks inherit the parent's project and cannot have their own tags. However, it does not mention response behavior, validation effects, or what happens with conflicting fields like projectId and parentId.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the subtask exception is stated as a single concise rule. 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 14-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the special subtask case but omits broad guidance on required fields, defaults, mutually exclusive date fields, or what the tool returns after creation. An agent would need to infer a significant amount from the schema alone.

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 only 50%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does add valuable semantics for parentId and tagIds by explaining subtask inheritance and tag restrictions. But most other parameters, including projectId, dueWithTime, and timeEstimate, receive no additional explanation beyond their schema descriptions.

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 'Creates a new task', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also adds a distinguishing constraint about subtasks, which helps separate it from sibling tools like sp_task_update and sp_task_archive.

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 usage: use this tool when a task needs to be created. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when an alternative like sp_task_update or sp_task_start would be more appropriate. The subtask rule provides some context but no direct selection guidance.

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