create_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool previews creation by default and requires confirm=True to actually create. This is a key behavioral trait for a write 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 two sentences plus a brief instruction. It is efficient, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the core behavior, prerequisite, and advanced use with extra_values. However, it omits details on optional parameters like user_id and deadline, which are intuitive but could be clarified.

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 explains the confirm parameter's effect and extra_values as a catch-all. But it does not describe user_id, description, or date_deadline, which are covered only by schema titles.

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 specifies the tool creates a project task (project.task) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_record by being task-specific. The verb 'Create' is clear and the resource is explicitly named.

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 provides a prerequisite: use list_projects to find project_id. It also advises using extra_values for unmodeled fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., for other record types), but the context makes it adequate.

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